Incentivised availability based support contracting - more from less, or bol.locks?

[Jackonicko]

Back in the days when RAF engineers provided first and second line servicing on station, and third line at the MU, it always seemed as though the system was well suited to the needs of a military organisation.

Your blue suited engineers could be called upon to work like donkeys if required for a surge, with no overtime payments required, but proud of their work, and proud to do their bit, and able to be rewarded in other ways by the intelligent SNCOs, JENGOs, SENGOs and OC Eng Wings.

And if you needed extra manpower for the Falklands, you had enough deployable blue suiters to provide a few without making the pips squeak, and without the unpopular detachments coming around too often.

If you needed to generate all 12 jets for a flypast, it could be done.

I can see that other arrangements might be appropriate for an airline, requiring steady state output, but have always wondered about the adoption of civilian practises and approaches for the military.

Quite apart from the issues with how required availability rates are decided, and how you allow for surge, are incentivised availability based support contracts ever going to be flexible enough to meet military needs?

Are the availability targets set high enough?

Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?

Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?

I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today. What do you think e-goat engineers. I have asked for opinions on prune as well to gauge the different answers.

 

[spencer the fencer]

Back in the days when RAF engineers provided first and second line servicing on station, and third line at the MU, it always seemed as though the system was well suited to the needs of a military organisation.

Your blue suited engineers could be called upon to work like donkeys if required for a surge, with no overtime payments required, but proud of their work, and proud to do their bit, and able to be rewarded in other ways by the intelligent SNCOs, JENGOs, SENGOs and OC Eng Wings.

And if you needed extra manpower for the Falklands, you had enough deployable blue suiters to provide a few without making the pips squeak, and without the unpopular detachments coming around too often.

If you needed to generate all 12 jets for a flypast, it could be done.

I can see that other arrangements might be appropriate for an airline, requiring steady state output, but have always wondered about the adoption of civilian practises and approaches for the military.

Quite apart from the issues with how required availability rates are decided, and how you allow for surge, are incentivised availability based support contracts ever going to be flexible enough to meet military needs?

Are the availability targets set high enough?

Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?

Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?

I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today. What do you think e-goat engineers. I have asked for opinions on prune as well to gauge the different answers.

Yeah don't worry about all that b*llocks think about how much money BAE Systems and its share holders are making.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Jackonicko, welcome to the goat by the way, it's much better than than that other site.

Interesting post.


Think Mil part 145 and then try and see which way the servicing is going.

Look in the Techies forum and you wil find lots of comments there about the servicing of military air fleets


TW

 

[Downsizer]

Civilian attitudes and practices simply don't work in the RAF. End of story. We are not a factory production line and now are getting dangerously close to not being able to cope with the unforeseen....

 

[Hu Jardon]

Back in the days when RAF engineers provided first and second line servicing on station, and third line at the MU, it always seemed as though the system was well suited to the needs of a military organisation.

Your blue suited engineers could be called upon to work like donkeys if required for a surge, with no overtime payments required, but proud of their work, and proud to do their bit, and able to be rewarded in other ways by the intelligent SNCOs, JENGOs, SENGOs and OC Eng Wings.

And if you needed extra manpower for the Falklands, you had enough deployable blue suiters to provide a few without making the pips squeak, and without the unpopular detachments coming around too often.

If you needed to generate all 12 jets for a flypast, it could be done.

I can see that other arrangements might be appropriate for an airline, requiring steady state output, but have always wondered about the adoption of civilian practises and approaches for the military.

Quite apart from the issues with how required availability rates are decided, and how you allow for surge, are incentivised availability based support contracts ever going to be flexible enough to meet military needs?

Are the availability targets set high enough?

Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?

Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?

I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today. What do you think e-goat engineers. I have asked for opinions on prune as well to gauge the different answers.

Errrm

1. Why are you asking?????

2. Are you a Journo?

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

He is a Jouno Hu

 

[spencer the fencer]

Back in the days when RAF engineers provided first and second line servicing on station, and third line at the MU, it always seemed as though the system was well suited to the needs of a military organisation.

Your blue suited engineers could be called upon to work like donkeys if required for a surge, with no overtime payments required, but proud of their work, and proud to do their bit, and able to be rewarded in other ways by the intelligent SNCOs, JENGOs, SENGOs and OC Eng Wings.

And if you needed extra manpower for the Falklands, you had enough deployable blue suiters to provide a few without making the pips squeak, and without the unpopular detachments coming around too often.

If you needed to generate all 12 jets for a flypast, it could be done.

I can see that other arrangements might be appropriate for an airline, requiring steady state output, but have always wondered about the adoption of civilian practises and approaches for the military.

Quite apart from the issues with how required availability rates are decided, and how you allow for surge, are incentivised availability based support contracts ever going to be flexible enough to meet military needs?

Are the availability targets set high enough?

Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?

Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?

I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today. What do you think e-goat engineers. I have asked for opinions on prune as well to gauge the different answers.

Just think Jackonicko after the next election when Gordo the wonder boy gets kicked out and the next inspirational w@nker gets voted in, he can go and take a consultation position on the board at Bae and advise them on their long term strategy, cause he's the only one who knows whats suppossed to be going on. Cnut

 

[The REAL Jackonicko]

The first post on this thread is a cut-and-paste from something that I posted on PPRuNe, with the words: "What do you think e-goat engineers. I have asked for opinions on prune as well to gauge the different answers." added at the end.

I did not post it here, and had I done so, would have made it clear that I am a journo.

I don't know who is impersonating me, though in this case, whoever it is seems to have done me a favour.

Edited to add:

I'm so used to posting on PPRuNe, where it says journo in my profile, and where everyone knows that I'm a journo, that I should perhaps not assume anything here.

Thus: I am a full time journalist, working primarily in the defence/aerospace field, and this has been my sole occupation for more than 20 years. I am from an RAF family, I am an enthusiastic PPL, and I was taught to fly on a UAS. My aim as a journo is to tell it like it is, or at least as I see it, to try to promote the RAF (an organisation that I have a great deal of respect for, and to which I feel I owe a debt of gratitude). I try to further the best interests of those who serve their country within the RAF. That often doesn't square with toeing the MoD PR party line, but while I am prepared to tell unpopular stories that might be politically embarrassing I would never want to write anything that could be of aid or comfort to an enemy, and I will never knowingly ask a question on here whose answer might be legitimately militarily sensitive, involving tactics or parametrics.

 

[Ex-Bay]

Good grief; and honest journo. . . . .
Welcome!

 

[Rich_P]

Just out of curiosity, what do you write for or are you freelance?

 

[Ex-Bay]

Have I blinked and missed something ?

Incentivised availability based support contracting

Is this English ?

 

[Rigga]

No - its not english - its a headline.

The Real One - As you are a Journo that seems to explain the somewhat sensationalist "lines" you feed to your victims (sorry, interviewees) in your monologue.

 

[The REAL Jackonicko]

Rigga,

Sensationalist lines fed to victims? Monologue? With that level of inaccurate summarising are you sure you don't write for the Sun, yourself?

I just asked some questions on PPRuNe.

 

[Tocsin]

Regarding postings, I have noticed a few threads on pprune that have mirrored subjects seen on e-goat over the last week or so (I go to pprune less frequently than e-goat).

There was a spate of these a while ago, and I think that possibly some "words were had" by mods at that time, as they suddenly stopped...