Flying Pay
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Autorev
How many times does this need explaining......
Aircrew are not required to justify the flying pay they receive - they only need to spend it!
Stop paying me flying pay and I leave. Simple.
Aircrew are not required to justify the flying pay they receive - they only need to spend it!
Stop paying me flying pay and I leave. Simple.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want flying pay then get a flying job. Simple eh? If you cant be @rsed/don't want to go through all the hoops, training and have to do a pretty stressful job, which might even kill you if you're not 100% on your game then carry on as ground pounders and stop winging. You had as much chance as anyone else.
In the meantime grow up, if you don't like it leave.
In the meantime grow up, if you don't like it leave.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Those people who 'knock' flying pay no doubt object to all other forms of specialist pay, e.g submariners, divers, etc, with equal venom???
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southside
You betcha!
How many people would accept a £13,000+ pay cut and not walk?
Not many, I'd wager!
We could then try a scheme such as...oh, say FRI, to keep 'em in...
As Tonkenna says, this subject is exceedingly dull - mainly due to its simplicity.
wouold you really leave if they stopped Flying pay? Would anyone else go if they took away flying pay?
How many people would accept a £13,000+ pay cut and not walk?
Not many, I'd wager!
We could then try a scheme such as...oh, say FRI, to keep 'em in...
As Tonkenna says, this subject is exceedingly dull - mainly due to its simplicity.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 171 Likes
on
33 Posts
Flying pay is really very simple. It's paid to people with a hard earned & very marketable skill in recognition of that skill, which is why it increases over time. It therefore is aimed at retaining people who have expensively acquired a range of skills over a long period & who might otherwise sell those skills to BA/ Virgin etc. To take flying pay off those in a ground job would penalise those who were either being groomed for promotion or were just posted there, as despite the creation of the Ops Support branch there are still some jobs that need an aircrew bod in them. To take a huge (when on full flying pay) paycut to be sent to a ground post would probably be the biggest non-retention scheme the MOD could invent!
Historically extra pay for aircrew reflected the danger & short life span of the job, & was resented by their more earth bound colleagues even then.
Strangely, I rarely hear criticism of RAF doctors, dentists & lawyers & their special rates of pay for their hard earned skills for which they could earn more outside.
Historically extra pay for aircrew reflected the danger & short life span of the job, & was resented by their more earth bound colleagues even then.
Strangely, I rarely hear criticism of RAF doctors, dentists & lawyers & their special rates of pay for their hard earned skills for which they could earn more outside.
civobs
You would have to extend the length of time from submitting a PVR to exiting the service, rather than the 'minimum required service time'.
Flying pay is about retention, and saving the taxpayer, government, MoD, RAF etc money. The last figure I heard was about £5 million to train a FJ pilot, £3 million for a ME pilot. No doubt the figures may be higher today. Pilots do have a skill that is 'saleable' in the commercial world, and there is a demand for it. Have no doubt about that. There has recently been an advert at the top of the pprune page where RyanAir were recruiting, with first officers on about £50,000-£70,000 I seem to remember. In pure cost terms which is better for UK plc. Pay a military pilot £35,000, but replace him every 10 years when he leaves for the airlines (cost over 30 years for ME pilot using my figures = £10.05 million) or pay one military pilot £50,000 but retain him for 30 years (cost = £4.5 million). As a taxpayer which would you rather fund?
You would have to extend the length of time from submitting a PVR to exiting the service, rather than the 'minimum required service time'.
Flying pay is about retention, and saving the taxpayer, government, MoD, RAF etc money. The last figure I heard was about £5 million to train a FJ pilot, £3 million for a ME pilot. No doubt the figures may be higher today. Pilots do have a skill that is 'saleable' in the commercial world, and there is a demand for it. Have no doubt about that. There has recently been an advert at the top of the pprune page where RyanAir were recruiting, with first officers on about £50,000-£70,000 I seem to remember. In pure cost terms which is better for UK plc. Pay a military pilot £35,000, but replace him every 10 years when he leaves for the airlines (cost over 30 years for ME pilot using my figures = £10.05 million) or pay one military pilot £50,000 but retain him for 30 years (cost = £4.5 million). As a taxpayer which would you rather fund?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 171 Likes
on
33 Posts
LJR
I fear you rather miss the point, of course BA, Virgin etc prefer pilots to Doctors & lawyers to fly their planes, the point was a general one - in a demand & supply economy, even where you bind people with lengthy minimum contract periods, you have to pay a reasonable 'going rate' to retain your staff. I remember a debate in Parliament in the early 80s where the exodus of pilots was being discussed, & MPs called for 'immediate steps to stop them leaving'. In a free society you can't 'chain people to the wheel', most of us signed up for 16 years from a very young age anyway, you have to encourage us to remain. Our job is, in most cases, likely to be more fun than the competition outside, we just can't compete on pay & conditions, (tents in this desert v 5* hotels + rates etc).
The MOD can close the gap financially by paying us extra salary which is why flying pay exists - if they didn't they'd have a bit of a retention problem. They can try & up the committment that youngsters sign up for but then they might have a recruitment problem - 16 years already seems a helluva long time when you're 18. Seems to me the present system is ok, except flying pay should be pensionable, but for those who remain in the longer term it is anyway on the PAS. I also think that other branches, such as Engineers who all have to be graduates, should be paid different rates, similar to the branch system for other ranks. I'm not trying to 'diss' the other branches such as Admin, I think they do a masterful job of trying to save taxpayer's money by preventing anyone from claiming anything, but the General Duties branch is dead, pay should be more job specific.
I fear you rather miss the point, of course BA, Virgin etc prefer pilots to Doctors & lawyers to fly their planes, the point was a general one - in a demand & supply economy, even where you bind people with lengthy minimum contract periods, you have to pay a reasonable 'going rate' to retain your staff. I remember a debate in Parliament in the early 80s where the exodus of pilots was being discussed, & MPs called for 'immediate steps to stop them leaving'. In a free society you can't 'chain people to the wheel', most of us signed up for 16 years from a very young age anyway, you have to encourage us to remain. Our job is, in most cases, likely to be more fun than the competition outside, we just can't compete on pay & conditions, (tents in this desert v 5* hotels + rates etc).
The MOD can close the gap financially by paying us extra salary which is why flying pay exists - if they didn't they'd have a bit of a retention problem. They can try & up the committment that youngsters sign up for but then they might have a recruitment problem - 16 years already seems a helluva long time when you're 18. Seems to me the present system is ok, except flying pay should be pensionable, but for those who remain in the longer term it is anyway on the PAS. I also think that other branches, such as Engineers who all have to be graduates, should be paid different rates, similar to the branch system for other ranks. I'm not trying to 'diss' the other branches such as Admin, I think they do a masterful job of trying to save taxpayer's money by preventing anyone from claiming anything, but the General Duties branch is dead, pay should be more job specific.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Ken
It seems the RAF is still in the cycle of boom or bust when it comes to aircrew retention, with most fleets under-crewed and the airlines having a healthy recruitment drive, it cant be long before we become dangerously short of experience................again.
Oh well, I guess this might mean that the FRI might be re-introduced at some stage in the future
It seems the RAF is still in the cycle of boom or bust when it comes to aircrew retention, with most fleets under-crewed and the airlines having a healthy recruitment drive, it cant be long before we become dangerously short of experience................again.
Oh well, I guess this might mean that the FRI might be re-introduced at some stage in the future
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to Radio 5 a couple of days ago and it seems the commercial world are well short of experianced second officers and are looking for folks with around a 1000 hrs/ATPL.............now where have we got loads and loads of them
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Article in the Telegraph two days ago:
"The airline industry is struggling to find pilots as demand for flights fuelled by no-frills airlines continues to grow.
While carriers continue to expand their networks, the soaring cost of aviation fuel is making training increasingly prohibitive, with one estimate putting the cost of getting a licence at more than £60,000.
Figures, show the number of UK-registered pilots falling from 2,723 in 2002-3 to 2,400 in 2004-5. According to the Civil Aviation Authority the number of planes taking off from and landing at British airports increased by 6pc in 2004 - the latest year for which figures are available.
British Airways is advertising for pilots, Ryanair is scouring Europe for recruits, and Easyjet has slashed its flying experience requirement from 1,500 to 500 hours."
"The airline industry is struggling to find pilots as demand for flights fuelled by no-frills airlines continues to grow.
While carriers continue to expand their networks, the soaring cost of aviation fuel is making training increasingly prohibitive, with one estimate putting the cost of getting a licence at more than £60,000.
Figures, show the number of UK-registered pilots falling from 2,723 in 2002-3 to 2,400 in 2004-5. According to the Civil Aviation Authority the number of planes taking off from and landing at British airports increased by 6pc in 2004 - the latest year for which figures are available.
British Airways is advertising for pilots, Ryanair is scouring Europe for recruits, and Easyjet has slashed its flying experience requirement from 1,500 to 500 hours."
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhhhh, the age-old flying pay argument, still as dull as ever.
There still seem to be those among my ground-based brethren that have an issue with it - I just don't understand why.
Like military doctors, dentists, etc, aircrew have very marketable skills outside the forces and to retain these specialists they need to be paid a bit more.
It is just a shame that aircrew are not just paid on a different (clearly higher!) payscale like the med guys, then this whole argument would just go away.
Then we could start one on the extra year's seniority they get as officers....
There still seem to be those among my ground-based brethren that have an issue with it - I just don't understand why.
Like military doctors, dentists, etc, aircrew have very marketable skills outside the forces and to retain these specialists they need to be paid a bit more.
It is just a shame that aircrew are not just paid on a different (clearly higher!) payscale like the med guys, then this whole argument would just go away.
Then we could start one on the extra year's seniority they get as officers....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree with you more southbound. Having us on a higher Pay scale would make much more sense...it would remove the flying pay argument and moreover it would then contribute towards our pension!
I personally just cannot understand the quibbles of a small minority of ground crew - at the end of the day the option is there for them to take a commision or NCA option. The majority of the ground crew do a fantastic job and do not complain or bicker about aircrew flying pay! Those who do moan should get off their ass and do something about it as they are clearly unhappy in their present positions.
I personally just cannot understand the quibbles of a small minority of ground crew - at the end of the day the option is there for them to take a commision or NCA option. The majority of the ground crew do a fantastic job and do not complain or bicker about aircrew flying pay! Those who do moan should get off their ass and do something about it as they are clearly unhappy in their present positions.
This is such a boring topic for discussion.
The (sensible) posts above clearly explain the reasons behind flying pay and the main difference between why it is issued today compared with during the 1940's.
If the moaning blunties are so stupid that they can't see (and accept) these reasons then I suggest they simply pack up their username and password and leave this forum.
Is it so hard to understand that a pilot is more sought after (and highly paid) in civvy street than an admin'er or supply officer?
If anyone disagrees....dry your eyes
.....and leave the forum please!
The (sensible) posts above clearly explain the reasons behind flying pay and the main difference between why it is issued today compared with during the 1940's.
If the moaning blunties are so stupid that they can't see (and accept) these reasons then I suggest they simply pack up their username and password and leave this forum.
Is it so hard to understand that a pilot is more sought after (and highly paid) in civvy street than an admin'er or supply officer?
If anyone disagrees....dry your eyes
.....and leave the forum please!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratty1, Tonks and others
You guys should not be on this thread iunless you are taking your medication or being supervised
Please go and re-read your TOR's for Spined and Spineless aircrew
Prior to the new system, FP (additional pay) was taxed but never pensionable
This was a big anomaly which, for more than 30 years after it came to light, the Treasury (Inland Revenue) fought and avoided
A number of people challenged this over recent years. Some got out of court settlements, but only after employing clever QC's - most got letters telling them to wind their necks in or else!
The present, and fairer system, groups up basic and additional pay (FP) which is both taxable and pensionable
It may not appear on your pay statement as FP but you are much better off in the long run - ie, a better pension
On my reckoning, just going back the 7 years the IR allows, the pensionable element of my past FP (£868 per month) would have been quite a few quid - multiply that by umpty thousand - no wonder they fought it!
Please stop moaning and enjoy
You guys should not be on this thread iunless you are taking your medication or being supervised
Please go and re-read your TOR's for Spined and Spineless aircrew
Prior to the new system, FP (additional pay) was taxed but never pensionable
This was a big anomaly which, for more than 30 years after it came to light, the Treasury (Inland Revenue) fought and avoided
A number of people challenged this over recent years. Some got out of court settlements, but only after employing clever QC's - most got letters telling them to wind their necks in or else!
The present, and fairer system, groups up basic and additional pay (FP) which is both taxable and pensionable
It may not appear on your pay statement as FP but you are much better off in the long run - ie, a better pension
On my reckoning, just going back the 7 years the IR allows, the pensionable element of my past FP (£868 per month) would have been quite a few quid - multiply that by umpty thousand - no wonder they fought it!
Please stop moaning and enjoy