SARH to go
Nightwatchman - the pension is good but the boarding school allowance is there to give kids stability instead of moving them every 2 years. It is the main reason that many stay in (me included) and the MoD knows it, it is the best retention measure that exists for those that want to take it up .
In real terms, I would have to earn another £50K to generate the £30K the MoD pays for my two kids to go to school. It's not everyone's cup of tea sending kids away to school and we only took up the allowance because of the poor local state schooling available here - just because I am serving doesn't mean my kids should be denied a decent education.
As Sven says - it is all the other crap that we have to put up with, which we would get paid extra for in civvystrasse, that balances the equation - FI, OOAs, ground tours, secondary duties etc etc. And we are not remunerated for extra qualifications - as an A2 QHI/IRE I don't get any extra dosh for the extra work or responsibility where a civilian equivalent would.
In real terms, I would have to earn another £50K to generate the £30K the MoD pays for my two kids to go to school. It's not everyone's cup of tea sending kids away to school and we only took up the allowance because of the poor local state schooling available here - just because I am serving doesn't mean my kids should be denied a decent education.
As Sven says - it is all the other crap that we have to put up with, which we would get paid extra for in civvystrasse, that balances the equation - FI, OOAs, ground tours, secondary duties etc etc. And we are not remunerated for extra qualifications - as an A2 QHI/IRE I don't get any extra dosh for the extra work or responsibility where a civilian equivalent would.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I’m not saying you guys don’t deserve the allowances you get. You work a difficult lifestyle and should quite rightly be compensated for it and certainly your kids schooling shouldn’t suffer because of it.
However, both you and Sven seem to be implying that a RAF pilot is cheaper than a civilian SAR pilot because you are paid less which is clearly not the case.
If we use your and Sven’s figures we accept that and RAF pilot earns between 45k and 65k (although Crab said top sixties we’ll work on the lesser one).
By your own admission you get 30k from the MOD for your kids schooling which takes the cost of an RAF pilot to around 75k-95k. (That schooling allowance would be equivalent to 48k pay increase, before tax, if you had to fund the schooling from your own pocket.)
Now we need to add the cost of a non contributory tax payer funded and guaranteed final salary pension scheme to the cost of an RAF SAR pilot.
I am no expert in pensions so I’ll need your help in working out exactly what your pension pot is worth. So if you could tell me what your pension will be when you retire, at what age you retire and how long you have to serve to get it, we can work out how much it costs to provide you with such a generous pension scheme.
As I said I have no issue with you being paid these allowances and in getting a non contributory pension scheme. I have to fund my own pension from my salary although my employer does contribute around 6.5k a year towards it. Unfortunately I have to suffer the vulgarities of the stock market to determine my final pension
You guys are on a first-rate deal (Good for you!) but let’s not mislead the forum by suggesting that an RAF pilot is cheaper!
I’m not saying you guys don’t deserve the allowances you get. You work a difficult lifestyle and should quite rightly be compensated for it and certainly your kids schooling shouldn’t suffer because of it.
However, both you and Sven seem to be implying that a RAF pilot is cheaper than a civilian SAR pilot because you are paid less which is clearly not the case.
If we use your and Sven’s figures we accept that and RAF pilot earns between 45k and 65k (although Crab said top sixties we’ll work on the lesser one).
By your own admission you get 30k from the MOD for your kids schooling which takes the cost of an RAF pilot to around 75k-95k. (That schooling allowance would be equivalent to 48k pay increase, before tax, if you had to fund the schooling from your own pocket.)
Now we need to add the cost of a non contributory tax payer funded and guaranteed final salary pension scheme to the cost of an RAF SAR pilot.
I am no expert in pensions so I’ll need your help in working out exactly what your pension pot is worth. So if you could tell me what your pension will be when you retire, at what age you retire and how long you have to serve to get it, we can work out how much it costs to provide you with such a generous pension scheme.
As I said I have no issue with you being paid these allowances and in getting a non contributory pension scheme. I have to fund my own pension from my salary although my employer does contribute around 6.5k a year towards it. Unfortunately I have to suffer the vulgarities of the stock market to determine my final pension
You guys are on a first-rate deal (Good for you!) but let’s not mislead the forum by suggesting that an RAF pilot is cheaper!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Where the work is
Age: 53
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its how much you cost to the employer that counts. Thats where you mil guys will be expensive, just how much only the bean counters will know.
Your right crab I should have said not sure I should tell you, as I am not sure how commercially sensitive that kind of information is. But it adds up to substantially more than my pay and i dont have a final salary pension in there.
Your right crab I should have said not sure I should tell you, as I am not sure how commercially sensitive that kind of information is. But it adds up to substantially more than my pay and i dont have a final salary pension in there.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay differences
I see several points out of the recent posts.
Firstly, I'm surprised at how much Crab is getting in Continuity of Education Allowance. I hadn't realised that anything like that sum was available (I don't have children).
Secondly, while acknowledging that you would need a very big pension pot to guarantee the pension package I expect in a few years, it isn't non-contributory. Service pay is abated by, I think, 11% against the civil comparators used by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, to allow for the costs of pension provision. Now I doubt that 11% of my pay over the years, properly invested, would buy my pension, but it would go a substantial way towards it.
Most importantly, if we are having this sort of difficult conversation regarding pay in an online forum, what's it going to be like if those discussing are sat in the same aircraft doing essentially the same job? Are the divisions going to be a permanent source of friction, or will people see that the whole remuneration vs obligation package is actually significantly different for the different employment conditions of civil and military personnel?
And after we land away on Ops, will the civilian members of the crew do the post-op paperwork while the military chaps try to claim the cost of lunch on JPA? Or are civil company allowances equally as tedious to actually get your hands on?
Sven
Firstly, I'm surprised at how much Crab is getting in Continuity of Education Allowance. I hadn't realised that anything like that sum was available (I don't have children).
Secondly, while acknowledging that you would need a very big pension pot to guarantee the pension package I expect in a few years, it isn't non-contributory. Service pay is abated by, I think, 11% against the civil comparators used by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, to allow for the costs of pension provision. Now I doubt that 11% of my pay over the years, properly invested, would buy my pension, but it would go a substantial way towards it.
Most importantly, if we are having this sort of difficult conversation regarding pay in an online forum, what's it going to be like if those discussing are sat in the same aircraft doing essentially the same job? Are the divisions going to be a permanent source of friction, or will people see that the whole remuneration vs obligation package is actually significantly different for the different employment conditions of civil and military personnel?
And after we land away on Ops, will the civilian members of the crew do the post-op paperwork while the military chaps try to claim the cost of lunch on JPA? Or are civil company allowances equally as tedious to actually get your hands on?
Sven
Nightwatchman - the point that needs highlighting is the number of pilots who actually claim boarding school allowance (or CEA as it is now known). On the flight at Chivenor, I am the only pilot who claims it - as I said, the majority of RAF SAR pilots are younger guys and gals. I suspect that across the SARForce the percentage is very similar so our overall cost is much lower than you assume.
As for lack of final salary pensions - who chose to work in civvystrasse? No-one seems to get final salary pensions anymore - the fact that they exist in the Services is used to offset our pay levels which would have to be higher if we had to sort our own pensions out so it's a case of swings and roundabouts. Hopefully the only real advantage is that they are paid from the defence budget instead of some dodgy hedge fund - the only thing more gold-plated than that is to have been the boss of RBS
As for lack of final salary pensions - who chose to work in civvystrasse? No-one seems to get final salary pensions anymore - the fact that they exist in the Services is used to offset our pay levels which would have to be higher if we had to sort our own pensions out so it's a case of swings and roundabouts. Hopefully the only real advantage is that they are paid from the defence budget instead of some dodgy hedge fund - the only thing more gold-plated than that is to have been the boss of RBS
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab,
I think I made it clear in my post that I have no problem with you having a final salary pension scheme. I don't like the pension arrangements I have but that was what is on offer and thats what I have to accept. You guys have a fantastic and very generous pension deal and long may it continue for you.
You and Sven were trying to imply that an RAF pilot was cheaper than a civilian pilot because you are paid less which is not true. If you were to take your pension pot and convert it to cash required to reproduce a similar scheme my guess is that in real terms an RAF pilot is paid a lot more than his civilian counterparts. I take your point that not everyone is in receipt of the £30k schooling provision.
To give you an idea my pension pot gets 14.6% of my salary each year (7.3 % comes from me) after 22 years I will get an estimated (cos it depends on the financial markets at the time) pension of 13.9% of what I am earning now.
You guys are paid less but you don't pay into your scheme so what % of your salary do you get and after how long? When we know that we can work out what your real pay is when you include your pension provisions.
And I'll say it again, I really have no problem with you getting a non contributory final salary scheme and your school fees!
I think I made it clear in my post that I have no problem with you having a final salary pension scheme. I don't like the pension arrangements I have but that was what is on offer and thats what I have to accept. You guys have a fantastic and very generous pension deal and long may it continue for you.
You and Sven were trying to imply that an RAF pilot was cheaper than a civilian pilot because you are paid less which is not true. If you were to take your pension pot and convert it to cash required to reproduce a similar scheme my guess is that in real terms an RAF pilot is paid a lot more than his civilian counterparts. I take your point that not everyone is in receipt of the £30k schooling provision.
To give you an idea my pension pot gets 14.6% of my salary each year (7.3 % comes from me) after 22 years I will get an estimated (cos it depends on the financial markets at the time) pension of 13.9% of what I am earning now.
You guys are paid less but you don't pay into your scheme so what % of your salary do you get and after how long? When we know that we can work out what your real pay is when you include your pension provisions.
And I'll say it again, I really have no problem with you getting a non contributory final salary scheme and your school fees!
Nightwatchman - according to the Armed Forces Pension calculator (available online) at the age of 55 (34 years service) as a Flt Lt on the Professional Aviator pay spine and the AFP05 pension scheme my final salary (at level 35 on PA) will be £74K and my pension will be £34K.
Suppose I live to 75 having retired fully at 55, I will get £680K to live off (just one year of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension!!!).
If you stay working in civvy flying until age 60 you will earn another 5 years of full pay (@£75K that is £375K) and then get 15 years of 14.6% (£11K) giving £165K and a total of £540K. If you keep flying to 65, that makes £750K pay and £110K pension giving £860K total.
It has been said that one reason Military pensions are so generous is that statistically not many of us live long enough to take them for very many years
Suppose I live to 75 having retired fully at 55, I will get £680K to live off (just one year of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension!!!).
If you stay working in civvy flying until age 60 you will earn another 5 years of full pay (@£75K that is £375K) and then get 15 years of 14.6% (£11K) giving £165K and a total of £540K. If you keep flying to 65, that makes £750K pay and £110K pension giving £860K total.
It has been said that one reason Military pensions are so generous is that statistically not many of us live long enough to take them for very many years
It will be interesting to see how much the financial viability of the 2 bidders determines the outcome of SARH. The technical details of the platform, training, basing etc don't leave much in terms of variation in order to meet the spec but awarding the contract to someone who isn't rock-solid financially would be an error.
Well maybe we could borrow some CG rearcrew since we don't have enough for full SAR cover at the moment
not everyone is in receipt of the £30k schooling provision
Not a single SAR aircrew person at Boulmer did when I was there - Sven, any info from further down the east coast?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nightwatchman
Crab and I are probably the two highest-paid non-executive captains in RAF SAR. So the RAF payscale stops at about the point that the civ payscale starts. Pay the differential (£23k on your and my figures) into a pension fund and what do you get over a career (OK, a banker with a lot of money, but you get the point?). The real point on this, though, is that we all made our career choices and we are where we are. When we (or people very like us a few years hence) are shoved into one crewroom with two very different employment structures, is it going to work? And if the answer is "maybe not", what should we be doing now to change that?
Sven
Crab and I are probably the two highest-paid non-executive captains in RAF SAR. So the RAF payscale stops at about the point that the civ payscale starts. Pay the differential (£23k on your and my figures) into a pension fund and what do you get over a career (OK, a banker with a lot of money, but you get the point?). The real point on this, though, is that we all made our career choices and we are where we are. When we (or people very like us a few years hence) are shoved into one crewroom with two very different employment structures, is it going to work? And if the answer is "maybe not", what should we be doing now to change that?
Sven
Last edited by Sven Sixtoo; 2nd Mar 2009 at 20:55. Reason: can't subtract 65 from 88!
Sven - I keep being told that the 66 milpers will be integrated into the civsar flts but with very little detail as to how. One suggestion is to have Mil flt cdrs so that they can look after the career/trg/AT/leave issues of the mil pers. However, unless the flt cdrs are on the FI roster as well (unlikely since they need to be the flt cdrs), that reduces significantly the number available for the FI. I also can't see the civilians being happy with a mil flt cdr so maybe there will be one of each (which seems equally unworkable).
I don't believe the RN have fully grasped the implications of SARH and will probably declare UDI and maintain at least Culdrose as a RN unit (if they are allowed to). If so, will they be on the FI roster? If not and they are counted as part of the 66 milpers, that leaves about one flt's worth of RAF SAR to man the FI - how is that going to work?
If the milpers are integrated into the civsar flts and, according to EU working time directives it needs 5.7 crews to give 24/7 SAR cover, how many crews will need to be established at each flt to allow for the milpers being sent to the FI? You can't send the civvies to the FI because they need to be reservists to preserve the bayonet strength of the FI and, if that does happen, you have to say that just civilianising the FI det completely and letting Brintel do the lot is a much more sensible solution.
The most ridiculous situation is that of Wattisham - the worst place in the world to put a SAR flt but, in theory, it will remain because the 12 existing base solution has been mandated by the IPT.
Frankly a bit of a bugger's muddle.
I don't believe the RN have fully grasped the implications of SARH and will probably declare UDI and maintain at least Culdrose as a RN unit (if they are allowed to). If so, will they be on the FI roster? If not and they are counted as part of the 66 milpers, that leaves about one flt's worth of RAF SAR to man the FI - how is that going to work?
If the milpers are integrated into the civsar flts and, according to EU working time directives it needs 5.7 crews to give 24/7 SAR cover, how many crews will need to be established at each flt to allow for the milpers being sent to the FI? You can't send the civvies to the FI because they need to be reservists to preserve the bayonet strength of the FI and, if that does happen, you have to say that just civilianising the FI det completely and letting Brintel do the lot is a much more sensible solution.
The most ridiculous situation is that of Wattisham - the worst place in the world to put a SAR flt but, in theory, it will remain because the 12 existing base solution has been mandated by the IPT.
Frankly a bit of a bugger's muddle.
Crab, presumably MIL SAR captains still do their share of LHS (ie '1st officer' duties) on the Mil SAR flights? (in the '90s it was common practice for a Captain to do 5 out of 10 shifts in the LHS)
Wonder how the Civ units do this? Are 1st officers just LHS until promoted? When promoted do the Captains just stay RHS?
Wonder how the Civ units do this? Are 1st officers just LHS until promoted? When promoted do the Captains just stay RHS?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, you make some valid points. However, I guess they will all be irrelevant by 2017. My guess is that by then there will be no Mil FI SAR requirement (probably no FI deployments)and the 66 Mil SAR personnel will be reduced to zero as it is finally recognised that the SAR skills necessary for SH and OOA operations can be met by the current helicopter training system. These unpalatable decisions will be forced on the military because of the lack of money available for Defence and the RAF will give up peripheral activities. This is not the cynic in me saying this but a pragmatic view of where we are. I understand that such thoughts are not new to those in power and it is only a matter of time.
Bertie - yes it still happens that way so that the copilots get to develop their handling skills in the RHS with an Op capt in the LHS.
Tigwas - the problem is that under SARH, the MoD pay 65-70% of the bill which is increased towards that maximum as each mil flt is handed over. It is in the MoDs interest to slow the transition down otherwise they are still paying for the Sea Kings (OSD 2017) as well as the SARH aircraft. If the military is removed completely from the equation then the bill will have to be paid from another govt department.
I don't know how easy it will be to amend the contract once it is signed but I expect it to involve lots of lawyers and be expensive so it is better to get all the problems ironed out before the signature.
All of these issues could have been resolved if the govt and the MoD and been able to concentrate on the issue instead of fighting wars on two fronts. The contract award is due later this year and signatures expected early 2010 so there isn't much time to sort out the detail of how it will all work.
The FI situation won't go away as long as Argentina still lay claim to the Malvinas and the Islanders still want to remain under British rule. I can't imagine the govt easily giving up something we went to war over, has potential oil and mineral wealth and is a strategic access point to the Antarctic.
Tigwas - the problem is that under SARH, the MoD pay 65-70% of the bill which is increased towards that maximum as each mil flt is handed over. It is in the MoDs interest to slow the transition down otherwise they are still paying for the Sea Kings (OSD 2017) as well as the SARH aircraft. If the military is removed completely from the equation then the bill will have to be paid from another govt department.
I don't know how easy it will be to amend the contract once it is signed but I expect it to involve lots of lawyers and be expensive so it is better to get all the problems ironed out before the signature.
All of these issues could have been resolved if the govt and the MoD and been able to concentrate on the issue instead of fighting wars on two fronts. The contract award is due later this year and signatures expected early 2010 so there isn't much time to sort out the detail of how it will all work.
The FI situation won't go away as long as Argentina still lay claim to the Malvinas and the Islanders still want to remain under British rule. I can't imagine the govt easily giving up something we went to war over, has potential oil and mineral wealth and is a strategic access point to the Antarctic.