CAA Director Airspace policy - £170 000 + bonus
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to reply that any civilian trained GA pilot should look elsewhere, as the job will go to an ex-Miltary senior officer, but DC10RealMan beat me to it..
Do we wonder why issues such as Mode S have got so far, when most of the policy makers at the CAA are ex-military types waiting to claim their second pension? A sizeable proportion of those in management or policy making positions at CAA-SRG are retired senior officers......
Old Boy's network? Freemasonry? Cynical? Moi......?
PS. The CAA-SRG Group Director's job is also up for grabs, but again, don't expect it to be anyone with a civilian light aircraft background.
Astir,
The CAA staff are not civil servants
Do we wonder why issues such as Mode S have got so far, when most of the policy makers at the CAA are ex-military types waiting to claim their second pension? A sizeable proportion of those in management or policy making positions at CAA-SRG are retired senior officers......
Old Boy's network? Freemasonry? Cynical? Moi......?
PS. The CAA-SRG Group Director's job is also up for grabs, but again, don't expect it to be anyone with a civilian light aircraft background.
Astir,
this is the Civil Service we're talking about
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS. The CAA-SRG Group Director's job is also up for grabs, but again, don't expect it to be anyone with a civilian light aircraft background.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Do job well, keep job" "Do job badly, get fired"
Give a policeman a target of 5 prosecutions per month and 5 normally law abiding citizens will get speeding tickets for doing 33 in a 30 mph zone. Much easier than catching 5 drug dealers.
What you need is respected professional people with authority to get on with their job.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the military guys get the jobs because:
a. They are the only ones who apply.
b. They are willing to take the relatively low pay for the responsibility(see Bose X's comments)
c. They are the best people for the job?
Give over.
a. They are the only ones who apply.
b. They are willing to take the relatively low pay for the responsibility(see Bose X's comments)
c. They are the best people for the job?
Give over.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I didn't know John was leaving. Wonder if it's retirement or pastures neu?
Chuffer Old Chap - Keep up, we're talking about DAP up on Kingsway. You are mistaken about SRG down at Gatport Airwick, where Blue has been almost completely erased.
Funnily enough, the one person there fighting for liberalsation of GPS recently retired, and he used to wear Blue.
Sir George Cayley
And like Bose-X not looking to take on the job. How would I pay my Footman on that income?
Chuffer Old Chap - Keep up, we're talking about DAP up on Kingsway. You are mistaken about SRG down at Gatport Airwick, where Blue has been almost completely erased.
Funnily enough, the one person there fighting for liberalsation of GPS recently retired, and he used to wear Blue.
Sir George Cayley
And like Bose-X not looking to take on the job. How would I pay my Footman on that income?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cnutsville
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who is slightly shocked that people on here insinuate £170,000.00 per annum is somehow low pay? Nearly £9,000 take home per month with the possibility of a bonus on top sounds pretty decent pay to me... then again I am just a commoner according to Bose!
The argument that the job comes with a relativity high level of responsibility does not really stick with me as if they do royally fudge up, whats the worst that will happen? A "to bad old chap" and a tasty golden handshake to see them on their way, only to turn up a few months later, wounds truly licked, at some other company on another huge salary?
Gotta say I find Bose's comments pretty insulting (probably not the first to say that!). I would assume that most on here do not earn that sort of money, and this could be for any number of reasons, but I do not think this is any reason to look down on them. Bose says he manages thousands of people - how many of them earn £170k a year? If a majority, I'm def in the wrong industry!
The argument that the job comes with a relativity high level of responsibility does not really stick with me as if they do royally fudge up, whats the worst that will happen? A "to bad old chap" and a tasty golden handshake to see them on their way, only to turn up a few months later, wounds truly licked, at some other company on another huge salary?
Gotta say I find Bose's comments pretty insulting (probably not the first to say that!). I would assume that most on here do not earn that sort of money, and this could be for any number of reasons, but I do not think this is any reason to look down on them. Bose says he manages thousands of people - how many of them earn £170k a year? If a majority, I'm def in the wrong industry!
I wouldnt really believe everything that one reads on these forums, some people tend to stretch the truth a little! It's a bit like internet dating, if they say "a few extra pounds" under body weight then that equates roughly to mean...run away! 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta say I find Bose's comments pretty insulting (probably not the first to say that!). I would assume that most on here do not earn that sort of money, and this could be for any number of reasons, but I do not think this is any reason to look down on them. Bose says he manages thousands of people - how many of them earn £170k a year? If a majority, I'm def in the wrong industry!
My views on the current socialist government are my views and nothing to do with looking down on others.
All I have been trying to say before it sank into the usual insult hurling is that senior people need to be attracted into these type of roles by making the package match what they have to offer. Even an organisation such as the CAA recognizes to bring talent into the public sector they must make it attractive. The package on offer when compared to what is achievable in the private sector by a suitably qualified and motivated individual is low. I really don't see what is so offensive about that.
I am sorry that people are upset that there are some in this country that earn more than minimum wage. But you will find it is the highly motivated, highly capable individuals who are prepared to go the extra mile and reach high standards.
You would be surprised how many on these forums would not get out of bed for such a package. I am just the only one to point out that it is the norm for the level rather than extraordinary. I could reel of a list of forumites who I know earn a damn site more and I would run out of fingers and toes to count. I know many people that have earned tens of millions yearly.
Like I said the green eyed monster is always going to come into play.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately most of the "anti" posts reflect the ignorance of most of the posters.
£170K is a comparable wage to the salary of the MD of an average company with the turnover and importance of this particular position, but most MD's in the south of England earn a lot more.
There's not a great deal more to say other than G.A is a very small part of the CAA's remit and in terms of the amount G.A contributes financially, it's on the verge of bugger all.
£170K is a comparable wage to the salary of the MD of an average company with the turnover and importance of this particular position, but most MD's in the south of England earn a lot more.
There's not a great deal more to say other than G.A is a very small part of the CAA's remit and in terms of the amount G.A contributes financially, it's on the verge of bugger all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CAA employees are not civil servants what are they? Is the CAA a private company?
Or are we just splitting hairs over the status of so-called Quangos?
Or are we just splitting hairs over the status of so-called Quangos?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they aren't civil servants in the sense that they aren't in the Civil Service, although you could call them that in a broad sense of the word. Public sector employee might be an appropriate description?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cnutsville
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to throw insults around here by any means, but your first post is a little out of order. I understand that a broad spectrum of people will post on these forums and mainly because of our common interest, more people from the top 5% salary band could afford to take up the hobby and therefore post here. The point I'm making is that you have tarred all people who earn less than you as un-motivated, low caliber people living in a "tacky 'standard' box! Not meaning to sound like one of those well meaning hippy types, but there are plenty or professions that attract high caliber people but attract a lower salary than the one quoted.... including every pilot who posts on the professional forum here I would imagine!
The Mother-in-Law is the head of the biggest college in the region, in charge of nearly 8,000 staff - she only just breaks £100k a year. I mention this as one example of public sector workers who earn less than their private sector peers, why should the CAA be any different?
The thing that gets me about all this is that people (and AOPA, who your a rep for I believe Bose) never stop complaining about the charges the CAA impose and the cost to GA pilots of the regulations they pass. Even if GA is a small part of the CAA's remit, "every little helps" (to copy the commoners supermarket) and so should we not be on their case to ensure they keep their spending in check? And clearly, if most on here earn so much, they should just pay up and stop winging.
The green-eyed monster thing is just childish - as who would not love to earn that sort of money? But you coming back with "your just jealous" to a criticism is a playground tactic kids use when they have run out of ideas.
The Mother-in-Law is the head of the biggest college in the region, in charge of nearly 8,000 staff - she only just breaks £100k a year. I mention this as one example of public sector workers who earn less than their private sector peers, why should the CAA be any different?
The thing that gets me about all this is that people (and AOPA, who your a rep for I believe Bose) never stop complaining about the charges the CAA impose and the cost to GA pilots of the regulations they pass. Even if GA is a small part of the CAA's remit, "every little helps" (to copy the commoners supermarket) and so should we not be on their case to ensure they keep their spending in check? And clearly, if most on here earn so much, they should just pay up and stop winging.
The green-eyed monster thing is just childish - as who would not love to earn that sort of money? But you coming back with "your just jealous" to a criticism is a playground tactic kids use when they have run out of ideas.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CAA employees are not civil servants what are they? Is the CAA a private company?
Or are we just splitting hairs over the status of so-called Quangos?
Or are we just splitting hairs over the status of so-called Quangos?
Do you even know what a quangos is? More specifically if you are going to complain about an organisation the least you could do is understand how it operates and it's remit.
No they are not civil servants. The CAA is a corporate body operated by the DofT and as such they are required to return a small profit. I seem to recall it is currently 6%. Non of the staff are civil servants and do not operate on civil servant grades.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to throw insults around here by any means, but your first post is a little out of order. I understand that a broad spectrum of people will post on these forums and mainly because of our common interest, more people from the top 5% salary band could afford to take up the hobby and therefore post here. The point I'm making is that you have tarred all people who earn less than you as un-motivated, low caliber people living in a "tacky 'standard' box! Not meaning to sound like one of those well meaning hippy types, but there are plenty or professions that attract high caliber people but attract a lower salary than the one quoted.... including every pilot who posts on the professional forum here I would imagine!
The Mother-in-Law is the head of the biggest college in the region, in charge of nearly 8,000 staff - she only just breaks £100k a year. I mention this as one example of public sector workers who earn less than their private sector peers, why should the CAA be any different?
The thing that gets me about all this is that people (and AOPA, who your a rep for I believe Bose) never stop complaining about the charges the CAA impose and the cost to GA pilots of the regulations they pass. Even if GA is a small part of the CAA's remit, "every little helps" (to copy the commoners supermarket) and so should we not be on their case to ensure they keep their spending in check? And clearly, if most on here earn so much, they should just pay up and stop winging.
The green-eyed monster thing is just childish - as who would not love to earn that sort of money? But you coming back with "your just jealous" to a criticism is a playground tactic kids use when they have run out of ideas
The Mother-in-Law is the head of the biggest college in the region, in charge of nearly 8,000 staff - she only just breaks £100k a year. I mention this as one example of public sector workers who earn less than their private sector peers, why should the CAA be any different?
The thing that gets me about all this is that people (and AOPA, who your a rep for I believe Bose) never stop complaining about the charges the CAA impose and the cost to GA pilots of the regulations they pass. Even if GA is a small part of the CAA's remit, "every little helps" (to copy the commoners supermarket) and so should we not be on their case to ensure they keep their spending in check? And clearly, if most on here earn so much, they should just pay up and stop winging.
The green-eyed monster thing is just childish - as who would not love to earn that sort of money? But you coming back with "your just jealous" to a criticism is a playground tactic kids use when they have run out of ideas
So your mother in law 'only' makes £100k in charge of a college with 8,000 staff, whoopy, perhaps she should go and get another job if she wants more, or maybe she enjoys her job and thinks the salary is acceptable, who knows.
My comment about the tacky box's is a reference to the eco-towns that this government thinks is a great idea to rip up our airfields and green spaces to build tens of thousands of identical little boxes all so we can get more people on the property ladder to continue fueling the credit culture in this country (we are the only country in Europe where everyone is driven to own a home as soon as possible).
As far as CAA costs are concerned it is a chicken and egg situation, yes AOPA want to keep the costs to aviation down, the direct costs hit people in the pocket at the small end of GA more than the CAT guys. But develop sensible policy and implement it and deal with the heavyweights in the airlines (who do buy in people with clout) requires individuals that can match those that they are dealing with. You need to take your head out of the GA bucket and look at the big picture. I was one of the founding team of a well known airline and the brightest and the best were brought into to ensure the success of the start up. That included people who it was felt had the strength to put pressure on the CAA. It is good to see the CAA recruiting likewise to bring balance.
I work in the private sector because the rewards are greater for my unique skills and as the holder of a direct P&L if I get it wrong I expect to 'fall on my sword' but if I get it right I expect the rewards that go with the dedication.
And finally I think you will find that your retort to the green eyed monster is actually the last bastion of the kid on the playground who has run out of mudd to sling.......
Pissing contest over.
Hmmmm.
I've worked in the public sector most of my life (never so far for the CAA and it's not on my list of ambitions); I've twice run departments and am about to take over my third - none as large as DAP, but all involving flying machines, safety and lots of people telling me how I should do my job.
Technically speaking, working for the CAA isn't civil service - but that's a moot point. It's public sector, with variations upon the job security, service ethos, pension rights, etc. that go with it. Nowadays there's a "public sector pensions club" which transfers pension rights between old and new employers within this sector.
Head of DAP is an important post with difficult and conflicting demands upon it; our views with GA, those of the airlines, those of the military operators, those of the general public we all fly over - well you'll never keep everybody (anybody?) completely happy and without any doubt that job needs somebody of a very high quality and they should be paid well to attract the right person. It's not unlikely that this may be somebody who used to wear a military uniform - let's face it, the services (usually) recruit the best and train them better, which tends to make people with such a background very appealing to an employer like the CAA (which, and I am being critical here, has little or no tradition of training people up from the bottom). That said, the autocratic, delegatory and hierarchical management approach within the services has to be unlearned rapidly - a few managers at CAA have sometimes failed in that and have been regarded by those of us outside unfavourably as a consequence.
But, let's be honest - CAA culture is largely office based, the career risks to any employee are relatively low (ever hear of a CAA manager sacked for making a mess of things - now how many times have you heard of this in industry or even the services?). This is also a Directors job, not the Chairman, so to compare this to a company MD in terms of responsibility is not reasonable.
Major functional heads in the public sector aren't badly paid these days - head of a large college, university faculty, small research council, large housing association: they can all expect to see high 5-figure salaries, perhaps a little over £100k. By and large this seems to attract the right people who do a good job.
Personally, I'd say the same should be true of this position.
G
I've worked in the public sector most of my life (never so far for the CAA and it's not on my list of ambitions); I've twice run departments and am about to take over my third - none as large as DAP, but all involving flying machines, safety and lots of people telling me how I should do my job.
Technically speaking, working for the CAA isn't civil service - but that's a moot point. It's public sector, with variations upon the job security, service ethos, pension rights, etc. that go with it. Nowadays there's a "public sector pensions club" which transfers pension rights between old and new employers within this sector.
Head of DAP is an important post with difficult and conflicting demands upon it; our views with GA, those of the airlines, those of the military operators, those of the general public we all fly over - well you'll never keep everybody (anybody?) completely happy and without any doubt that job needs somebody of a very high quality and they should be paid well to attract the right person. It's not unlikely that this may be somebody who used to wear a military uniform - let's face it, the services (usually) recruit the best and train them better, which tends to make people with such a background very appealing to an employer like the CAA (which, and I am being critical here, has little or no tradition of training people up from the bottom). That said, the autocratic, delegatory and hierarchical management approach within the services has to be unlearned rapidly - a few managers at CAA have sometimes failed in that and have been regarded by those of us outside unfavourably as a consequence.
But, let's be honest - CAA culture is largely office based, the career risks to any employee are relatively low (ever hear of a CAA manager sacked for making a mess of things - now how many times have you heard of this in industry or even the services?). This is also a Directors job, not the Chairman, so to compare this to a company MD in terms of responsibility is not reasonable.
Major functional heads in the public sector aren't badly paid these days - head of a large college, university faculty, small research council, large housing association: they can all expect to see high 5-figure salaries, perhaps a little over £100k. By and large this seems to attract the right people who do a good job.
Personally, I'd say the same should be true of this position.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cnutsville
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Jesus mate, chill out! Genuinely wasn't trying to throw insults around (not one of the "don't mean to be rude BUT" moments). Seriously I'm not looking for a war of words, just a healthy debate and, to me at least, that was pretty obvious from my last post. So don't worry you were not having to "take crap from people like" me!
2)The 'only' was to highlight that she makes £102k therefore she 'only' just breaks £100k. She doesn't want more, she is very comfortable and likes her job. That is not my point though.
3) OK, what I thought you meant by 'tacky' box was your standard suburban semi, what the majority of people on middle of the road incomes live in.
4) Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense that the CAA not a strong team to stand up to the airline 'big boys' and who should, in theory at least, stand up for GA. As an AOPA rep though, do you really believe that's going to happen based on past experience?
See, that weren't so bad was it.
2)The 'only' was to highlight that she makes £102k therefore she 'only' just breaks £100k. She doesn't want more, she is very comfortable and likes her job. That is not my point though.
3) OK, what I thought you meant by 'tacky' box was your standard suburban semi, what the majority of people on middle of the road incomes live in.
4) Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense that the CAA not a strong team to stand up to the airline 'big boys' and who should, in theory at least, stand up for GA. As an AOPA rep though, do you really believe that's going to happen based on past experience?
See, that weren't so bad was it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bose re your question
Please don't this as being rude, but where are you from or specifically which planet!
Do you even know what a quangos is? More specifically if you are going to complain about an organisation the least you could do is understand how it operates and it's remit.
Answer - I'm from Wales specifically Llangollen - now let's hear you pronounce that!
Quango
Quango (p.s. not a quangos) has been used as an acronym for
a) "Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation
or b) Quasi non-governmental organisation
or c) Quasi-autonomous national governmental organisation
A Quango has also been described as a non-departmental public body
Personally I take the CAA to fall into the category of b) above.
Amongst other things if the CAA is not a government body, how does it get to prosecute people?
Oh and since you were being rude, it's now my turn.
Comment deleted after cooling off slightly
Please don't this as being rude, but where are you from or specifically which planet!
Do you even know what a quangos is? More specifically if you are going to complain about an organisation the least you could do is understand how it operates and it's remit.
Answer - I'm from Wales specifically Llangollen - now let's hear you pronounce that!
Quango
Quango (p.s. not a quangos) has been used as an acronym for
a) "Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation
or b) Quasi non-governmental organisation
or c) Quasi-autonomous national governmental organisation
A Quango has also been described as a non-departmental public body
Personally I take the CAA to fall into the category of b) above.
Amongst other things if the CAA is not a government body, how does it get to prosecute people?
Oh and since you were being rude, it's now my turn.
Comment deleted after cooling off slightly
Last edited by astir 8; 10th Jun 2008 at 09:57.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't take a lot of research to find out what the CAA actually is.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is a public corporation, was established by Parliament in 1972 as an independent specialist aviation regulator and provider of air traffic services.
The CAA is the UK's independent specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include economic regulation, airspace policy, safety regulation and consumer protection.
The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work.
The CAA is the UK's independent specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include economic regulation, airspace policy, safety regulation and consumer protection.
The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work.