RAF Pensions to change

[Bignick]

Potentially, but is it realistic? No. And once again Techies dip out as we (in my case) had JT rank to deal with and will have CT before I get a sniff of 55. As a Sgt who's done 20 years, 5 1/2 of them have been in a rank (and training for the trade change) that non-techies don't have. And let's be frank, 4 1/2 years as a JT is not long, many are a lot more than that. It is likely that should I get CT it would take at least 5 years plus before FS is offered, so qround 10 years wasted.

Hit the nail on the head with vernier precision! Techies crap out as usual, did you know that average promotion to FS in TG17 is 22.5 years? That is a pipe dream for us, I made Chf in 1 week short of 22 yrs and that is considered motoring! Not a dig at TG17 BTW, in this case they have it right, Techies are being poorly represented (second class IMO)

 

[Joe_90]

Am I right in saying that in the dim and distant past C/T was FS equivalent? I'm talking 50's or 60's. This might go some way to explain the system now. Lots of little tweaks to the rank structure without ever standing back and asking what we actually need it to do.

 

[firestorm]

If the government hack into public sector pension there will be huge unrest. I feel very strongly about this issue, after all pensions are deferred wages. I've put thousands of my own money into my scheme, I suffered substandard wages, awful working conditions, long hours, missed Christmases, birthdays et al. I've seen some things people shouldn't have to see and served both my country and laterly, my community well. Its been my lifes work.
Well now its payback time. I want what was sold to me. I want my full pension.
I don't want to work longer, pay more and get less.

 

[ivrytwr3]

If the government hack into public sector pension there will be huge unrest. I feel very strongly about this issue, after all pensions are deferred wages. I've put thousands of my own money into my scheme, I suffered substandard wages, awful working conditions, long hours, missed Christmases, birthdays et al. I've seen some things people shouldn't have to see and served both my country and laterly, my community well. Its been my lifes work.
Well now its payback time. I want what was sold to me. I want my full pension.
I don't want to work longer, pay more and get less.

I hear you and completely agree. But whatare we going to do IF this does come in? Feck all as usual. We'll bitch and moan and maybe do a little peaceful protest - but at the end of the day we'll ultimately roll over and lose ££££££1000's.

 

[Bignick]

Am I right in saying that in the dim and distant past C/T was FS equivalent? I'm talking 50's or 60's. This might go some way to explain the system now. Lots of little tweaks to the rank structure without ever standing back and asking what we actually need it to do.

Both ranks are NATO OR7 and Chf Tech attracts FS pension after 2 years in rank. FS is still superior to Chf Tech ie once you are promoted out of Chf tech you become a FS. Between Chf Tech and Jnr Tech or SAC(T) as it is today puts about 7-10 year brake on the average techie careers

 

[Sospan]

Both ranks are NATO OR7 and Chf Tech attracts FS pension after 2 years in rank. FS is still superior to Chf Tech ie once you are promoted out of Chf tech you become a FS. Between Chf Tech and Jnr Tech or SAC(T) as it is today puts about 7-10 year brake on the average techie careers

It's a farce, get promoted to Sgt alongside a non-technical trade, then spend at least 4 years more than them getting to WO.

 

[Shiney Scot]

It's a farce, get promoted to Sgt alongside a non-technical trade, then spend at least 4 years more than them getting to WO.

It might well be a farce but when it was mooted that the Chf Tech rank was going to be abolished there was uproar from the engineering fraternity. If you need the rank to do the job then start badgering your Trade Sponsor with proposed solutions to solve the promotion differences between List 1 and List 2 trades.

At present, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Sospan]

It's a farce, get promoted to Sgt alongside a non-technical trade, then spend at least 4 years more than them getting to WO.

It might well be a farce but when it was mooted that the Chf Tech rank was going to be abolished there was uproar from the engineering fraternity. If you need the rank to do the job then start badgering your Trade Sponsor with proposed solutions to solve the promotion differences between List 1 and List 2 trades.

At present, you can't have it both ways.

The Navy might be on to something with the WO1&2 ranks, we could bin
FS for the tech trades then.

 

[glassestashthunderflash]

It might well be a farce but when it was mooted that the Chf Tech rank was going to be abolished there was uproar from the engineering fraternity. If you need the rank to do the job then start badgering your Trade Sponsor with proposed solutions to solve the promotion differences between List 1 and List 2 trades.

At present, you can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE]

The fact of the matter is that we need CT's. The uproar wasn't driven by the financial benefits; it was purely the need for a rank between Sgt and FS.

Basically, the Sgt's will run the trade shift, team etc, the CT will look after all the shifts, teams etc within that trade, the FS will look after every trade shift, team etc, and that is mostly admin work. Without the CT who does his job?

As for the pension thing, as far as I know a CT is not on the same pension as a FS, he is on the same pay scale but lower down, so is likely to draw a lesser pension due to the amount of time served.

 

[Notred13]

The fact of the matter is that we need CT's. The uproar wasn't driven by the financial benefits; it was purely the need for a rank between Sgt and FS.

Basically, the Sgt's will run the trade shift, team etc, the CT will look after all the shifts, teams etc within that trade, the FS will look after every trade shift, team etc, and that is mostly admin work. Without the CT who does his job?

As for the pension thing, as far as I know a CT is not on the same pension as a FS, he is on the same pay scale but lower down, so is likely to draw a lesser pension due to the amount of time served.

A Chf Tech receives the same pension as a FS if they are both on the AFPS75, the way you describe it only applies under AFPS05, although Chf Techs are limited to level 7 and FS can go to 9 it is likely that a FS of the non technical trades will take a while to reach higher levels than a Chief, ultimately they would end up on roughly the same pension even under the new pension scheme. In all other ways CT is equivalent to FS; they are both listed as OR8 in NATO, an FS can't apply MAA to a Chf, etc.., generally Flt Sgt's wouldn't go out of their way to get in a pi$$ing contest as most of them in the techie world rely heavily on the support of the Chfs.DT_Xtremez_26:

 

[Bignick]

In all other ways CT is equivalent to FS; they are both listed as OR8 in NATO, an FS can't apply MAA to a Chf, etc.., .DT_Xtremez_26:

I thought they were both OR7! Love to see where a FS can't MAA (and I therefore assume 252) a Chf Tech. Care to show me where it's written?

 

[Notred13]

I stand corrected; they are in fact both OR7. If you read the rules concerning MAA you'll find that my statement is right, I believe that it was due to the fact that as a Chf Tech you could have a Sgt non-techie working for you, he's then promoted and all of a sudden you could have an issue. Believe me, it's good rule 'cause the situation does arise.

 

[Notred13]

I stand doubly corrected:-

As per STANAG 2116 Edition 6 dated Feb 2010 the OR NATO equivalent ranks for the RAF have changed a bit:

OR9 WO/MACR
OR8 FS and C/T
OR7 Sgt
OR6 No equivalent rank
OR5 Corporal
OR4 No equivalent
OR3 J/T, SAC,LAC
OR2 A/C
OR1 No equivalent Rank

DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Sospan]

I stand doubly corrected:-

As per STANAG 2116 Edition 6 dated Feb 2010 the OR NATO equivalent ranks for the RAF have changed a bit:

OR9 WO/MACR
OR8 FS and C/T
OR7 Sgt
OR6 No equivalent rank
OR5 Corporal
OR4 No equivalent
OR3 J/T, SAC,LAC
OR2 A/C
OR1 No equivalent Rank

DT_Xtremez_42:

And that doesn't include L/Cpl.

 

[Bignick]

I stand doubly corrected:-

As per STANAG 2116 Edition 6 dated Feb 2010 the OR NATO equivalent ranks for the RAF have changed a bit:

OR9 WO/MACR
OR8 FS and C/T
OR7 Sgt
OR6 No equivalent rank
OR5 Corporal
OR4 No equivalent
OR3 J/T, SAC,LAC
OR2 A/C
OR1 No equivalent Rank

DT_Xtremez_42:

Best I go in and demand my pay rise, I have been languishing in HPB 7 for over a year now when I surely should be on 8 as per my OR8 equivalents. Shame there aren't any Chf Techs in TG17....I might have a rats chance of actually getting it if there were! DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Climebear]

I stand doubly corrected:-

As per STANAG 2116 Edition 6 dated Feb 2010 the OR NATO equivalent ranks for the RAF have changed a bit:

OR9 WO/MACR
OR8 FS and C/T
OR7 Sgt
OR6 No equivalent rank
OR5 Corporal
OR4 No equivalent
OR3 J/T, SAC,LAC
OR2 A/C
OR1 No equivalent Rank

DT_Xtremez_42:

I wonder who changed it and under what national authority.

It does not accord with either QRs or JSPs. These remain the authoritative documents.

By the way, does anyone have access to the British Army table in the STANAG?

 

[firestorm]

I hear you and completely agree. But whatare we going to do IF this does come in? Feck all as usual. We'll bitch and moan and maybe do a little peaceful protest - but at the end of the day we'll ultimately roll over and lose ££££££1000's.

I guess the forces are very limited in what actions they can take. I'm not restricted though.

 

[wally375]

So, any more news on pensions changing? Do we all need to bang out before 2015 to ensure we keep what we've earnt?

 

[Vauxhall]

The Forces Pension Society will be involved in consultation on the changes but we haven't heard yet what is proposed. We do know, however, that the amount you have already accrued will be protected.

 

[bubblebutt]

The Forces Pension Society will be involved in consultation on the changes but we haven't heard yet what is proposed. We do know, however, that the amount you have already accrued will be protected.

It might be accrued but WHEN DO YOU GET IT? That's the important question, do you get it straight away or wait until you're 60 to receive it. No one has mentioned that yet.