Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
- Post and participate in discussions.
- Send and receive private messages with other members.
- Respond to polls and surveys.
- Upload and share content.
- Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Trending
This Week
View More Trending
The Helpful Stacker
Corporal
- 327
- 0
- 0
But only A-class drivers can drive artics.
J
Justacabbie
Guest
Seems we could go round in circles forever on this one. TY for your comments S4E you may note I did say that i could stand corrected on wages etc. All im trying to say is that the MT trade had a review, which was well thought out, well presented and extremely thorough. It does not prohibit any other trades stating their case, we had our chance and it paid off for us. Imagine on the flip side of the coin how the SGT's in MT feel. I for one have seen quite alot of resentment as I will slide across to equivalent of (i believe) a level 5 SGT! Most trades have specialists, and supply is no exception to that. I respect the work I have seen the guys do on TSW and appreciate how much time, like myself they spend away from home. The time to be honest has come for an RAF wide pay review, not just certain trades. As for driving artics being part of the equation, I know of guys since my time in who had to do resettelment C+E. If its required for your job/trade then be glad that auntie betty paid for it and use it as a feather in your cap for the future. We need to stop cross examining different trades as there are similarities, but a driver is a driver at the end of the day and a supplier is a supplier who may in his duties get to drive big things. Also he may not!
I bow down on this and wish supply good luck if they get a chance to state their case.
I bow down on this and wish supply good luck if they get a chance to state their case.
Specialist ! Truck driving is truck driving.... What makes these jobs so specialised to justify a increase in band ?
stacker4ever
Hot Refueller
- 198
- 0
- 0
C&S I am in total agreement with you, it is the job of the trade sponsors to fight the case for any pay awards and if only supply would fight as hard as those on MT did we may have a chance yet although ours may have to go get thier spine put back in for it to happen.
When Payscam 2000 was first released it was announced that each and every trade would be reviewed every x ammount of years. The fact that some trades have managed to impress the review panel is not something to be sneered at by the rest of us.
It seems to me that the trades that have the most proactive trade sponsors are the ones that become vilified by the others. Stop moaning.
It seems to me that the trades that have the most proactive trade sponsors are the ones that become vilified by the others. Stop moaning.
So because some trades have a proactive trade sponsor they deserve a pay rise ? what utter nonsense.
No, but they are getting recognised because they have a pro active trade sponsor. My trades last pay review was turned down, but at least our trade sponsor tried this time. The previous review, led by a complete waste of space for a sponsor consisted of sending a questionaire to 20 cpl's most of whom were in there last year or two. There were 15 questions in each paper, some of which could be adequately answered in one word. It failed miserably.
How can that be considered a fair basis on which to judge a whole trade? I never said that trades should have a successful bid for higher pay because they have a more proactive trade sponsor, but I did intimate that they may have got the success because their trade sponsor sold them very well to the pay review panel.
The MTD's, chefs, RAFP and Regiment have had the full support of their trade sponsors and good luck to them with the pay scales they are now on.
J
Justacabbie
Guest
I for one specialise in many things over and above what an MTD is called upon to perform. I am forestry commision chainsaw qualified which allows me to clear a crash site for access for recovery or heli ops. I am trained in the use of crash recovery equipment such as the thermal lance, disc cutter, brush cutter, cold cutter, jaws of life, hydraulic lifting equipment, low pressure airbags for lifting etc. I work closely with the Air Accident Investigation Board and they regularly draw on our expertise in wreckage recovery from the most arduous locations. I refer to the F3 crash in Nov last year where we called upon various agencies to support the safe recovery of the wreck for the BOI and investigators. These assets included supacats, BV's, hovercraft, barges, chinook heli, merlin to name but a few. I am also part of NARG for those who know what that is, which by its very nature is specialist work. Youre absolutely correct, driving a truck is just that, but thats not all I do. At the trade review were some extremely cynical people as to what exactly an MTD is called upon to perform in the line of his duty. I firmly believe we have silenced those people.
<climbs off soap box and takes a bow>
You are preaching to the wrong person here CAS ! From your quote I am guessing as a MT driver you were in charge of recovering that Aircraft ? or were you are a MT driver in support of a group of technichians...
By the way it was a GR4 we lost last year not a F3 but I wouldn't expect a driver to know the difference. (they look the same from the bowser)
J
Justacabbie
Guest
It was hard to tell what variant it was as it was slightly bent, but OK if you say it was a GR4 then fine. Have you heard of teamwork? No I wasnt in charge we have an ARO for that but like anyone in a team we all have a valuable input and should be encouraged as such. Comments about bowsers is totally To55 as it would have sunk in the mud.
I am a great enthusiast when it comes to teamwork, It is always positively encouraged in my book, but not sliding off topic, there is a place in this great team for a driving workforce, but in my opinion at the top of the tree is not where it should be ! Does Virgin Atlantic pay its Pilots the same as its Engineers ? no (quite rightly) Does Virgin Atlantic pay its Engineers the same as its drivers ? I think NOT
J
Justacabbie
Guest
Quite correct, I also said in a previous reply on this thread that the RAF as a whole needed a pay review
I fully agree with you there, I have stated before on this site there have been many positive suggestions and ideas about a fair pay structure, which would award both increments and trade specific pay. as discussed here
Many people have mentioned a third pay band, but in my opinion this would bring the same unrest as the present system, a wholesale overhaul is what is needed. (but highly unlikely to happen)
DT_Xtremez_17:
J
Justacabbie
Guest
Do you know what annoys me the most is that after a certain time in rank you can no longer increment. I speak only for my trade but it is notoriously hard to get promoted to Cpl, and now with Cpls sitting pretty not wanting to take their third. There should be continuing increments and not (7?) a finite number.
I agree that in the most 7 increments is insufficient given the fact most people cross in at level 3, but I think a infinite amount of levels that would be unhealthy for a number of reasons, for one you eluded to in a earlier post you as a Cpl will be earning more than some Sgt's in your trade, that can cause ill effects. The more contentious issues are at the C/T FS level 7/9 area where pay is at a virtual standstill.
- 1,966
- 38
- 13
Not so fast. There are some jobs that are clearly so specialised that the review board will not accept them as routine for all members of that trade. I work in a specialised post. We were visited by the PRB. After we had shown them what we do they simply said, "Well, this is all very impressive but there arent many of you in the trade that undertake this duty and therefore it wont be considered.". If they felt like this, goodness knows why they bothered turning up.
There are other public sector workers with similar schemes, like nurses for example. I guess they have to draw the line somewhere with increments otherwise no-one would need to take promotion.
Last edited:
The Stig A.D.I.
Corporal
- 400
- 16
- 0
Agreed, Crash and Smash - but the fact that it's so difficult to get promoted to Cpl in MT would suggest that it's just as difficult (and time consuming), if not more so, to attain the rank of Sgt; therefore, the vast majority of Cpls are going to be on at least level 6 or 7 if/when they're picked-up, so the fact that (although they'll then drop back to the low band) means that they'll hit LB Sgt level 6 on promotion! Surely that's incentive enough to be wanting to get on, rather than 'sitting pretty'? Afterall, if extra increment levels were to be adde to the Cpl range, wouldn't that encourage more people to not take their third??? Surely then it'd be an even worse case of 'Yeah, whatever, Sarge - I was late because I had to dag my wallet in behind me, etc...
Snowball, I'll apologise in advance for this post as it is indeed off-topic...
DT_Xtremez_42:
Snowball, I'll apologise in advance for this post as it is indeed off-topic...
DT_Xtremez_42:I know the feeling. My role is so specialised I had a three month handover! during that time my predecessor was visited and told if he represented a significant portion of the trade then the whole trade would be bumped up, however he actually only represented himself and me, so therefore he wouldn't be included
