Retention.....

[Realist78]

Sadly, my boss is not in that position. I just get to see the correspondence that passes regularly between him and his boss.

I fully understand your frustration - I tried to blag a pax trip over your neck of the woods under the guise of 'pre-OASC research'. Everyone was willing to accommodate me but I gave up trying when the first 3 missions were scrubbed and I was dumped from the fourth because genuine crews were in danger of losing currency.

The best analogy I can use for our current situation is to compare the RAF to a leaking dam. While we are all stopping up various holes, the grown-ups are stood back a pace looking to see where the next leak is likely to spring from and figuring out how they can reinforce that part of the dam before the whole thing collapses. I really am confident the dam will hold.

Which gets diluted as it goes up, ever heard of the 'crock of sh1t'?

That's the problem, they are actually doing nothing. It's ok saying resources are tight etc but if they don't fix it really soon, they'll have nothing to spend those resources on!DT_Xtremez_17:

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Off Topic'Pared' MP, tut tut.

It was late, and I'd been drinking...in my (meagre) defence.

 

[Tubby]

Sadly, my boss is not in that position. I just get to see the correspondence that passes regularly between him and his boss.

Exactly what I said earlier, you dont actually know anything, you have just got half a story by reading his e-mails and made up the rest, I believe thats how B-liar became convinced of WMD's in Iraq when almost everyone else said thier wasn't any. I'm afraid this Dam has alreadfy been breached, the question is how badly, will we be merged with the Army sooner than I thought we would because of sheer incompetance.

 

[Hu Jardon]

I really am confident the dam will hold.

And if you'd been on the Titanic you'd have told everyone to stop panicking because it was unsinkable.................................................

 

[Sospan]

And if you'd been on the Titanic you'd have told everyone to stop panicking because it was unsinkable.................................................

Why is everybody jumping on TBJ's back ? He is entitled to his own opinion.

Back on topic, I have been thinking hard about what the RAF needs to do to retain me, I have hit the half way point to 22, but 11 years seems a long way off, god only knows what sort of state we will be in by then. Changes need to be soon to keep the guys on the ****ty end of the stick in.

 

[mick-a-nick]

Retention problems are being made worse by the inept management eroding the support network. I am so old that I can remember going to the 'General Office' to sort out pay problems after detachment. Now I have to deal with a fcuking confuser run organidation called JPA and I now have a NPD (Net Public Debt) because the person putting the information in got it wrong. I have had to sort their cock ups out, all I did was go to Iraq to do my duty and then the civilians took the p**s and got my pay wrong.
In the old days, a quick trip to Handbrake House and in fifteen minutes the problem would have been sorted. JPA reckon it will be sorted out in November.
Progress should be made along with improvement but when you buy a computer system that does not satisfy our needs, then no matter what you do, it will always be a 'Pig in a Poke'
With only a wee while to go, I look forward to the frustration of claiming my pension.

 

[Tubby]

Why is everybody jumping on TBJ's back ? He is entitled to his own opinion.

Very true and when its his own and not one thats half plagiarised I will listen to him, he quite often has something interesting to say but this is clearly dribble of the highest order, If he said I am going for commision (not that it should make a difference) so I will tow the line and this is it, we would know where he stands, but to spout the bollox as though he is a 2*'s batman is making a mockery of the idea of this forum plus his own pride. The RAF News is for spouting propaganda, this is where we demolish it.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Exactly what I said earlier, you dont actually know anything, you have just got half a story by reading his e-mails and made up the rest, I believe thats how B-liar became convinced of WMD's in Iraq when almost everyone else said thier wasn't any. I'm afraid this Dam has alreadfy been breached, the question is how badly, will we be merged with the Army sooner than I thought we would because of sheer incompetance.

Very true and when its his own and not one thats half plagiarised I will listen to him, he quite often has something interesting to say but this is clearly dribble of the highest order, If he said I am going for commision (not that it should make a difference) so I will tow the line and this is it, we would know where he stands, but to spout the bollox as though he is a 2*'s batman is making a mockery of the idea of this forum plus his own pride. The RAF News is for spouting propaganda, this is where we demolish it.

Am I plagiarising others' opinions or am I making it up? You don't seem able to decide.

Some people seem to have bought so deeply into the 'lions led by donkeys' school of thought that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the people who have to make the choice between one more Typhoon or 500 more lineys might actually examine all the options before making that decision. It's easy to sit here and say we need both, of course we do, but there is one all-important limiting factor...money. And that is not set by anyone in a blue suit, as we all know.

For your information, my opinion is my own and it is based on both facts and observation.

But let's take this forward now. If you were Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird and you had to support 2 operations with a trained strength of 41000, 3000 of whom are actively deployed at any one time, how would you persuade people to stay? The only limitation is that you have no additional money, so if, e.g., you establish an extra Chinook Sqn to ease the workload on 18 and 27, that cost would have to be offset by, e.g., the loss of a Sqn somewhere else.

The floor is open.

 

[gemarriott]

Am I plagiarising others' opinions or am I making it up? You don't seem able to decide.

Some people seem to have bought so deeply into the 'lions led by donkeys' school of thought that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the people who have to make the choice between one more Typhoon or 500 more lineys might actually examine all the options before making that decision. It's easy to sit here and say we need both, of course we do, but there is one all-important limiting factor...money. And that is not set by anyone in a blue suit, as we all know.

For your information, my opinion is my own and it is based on both facts and observation.

But let's take this forward now. If you were Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird and you had to support 2 operations with a trained strength of 41000, 3000 of whom are actively deployed at any one time, how would you persuade people to stay? The only limitation is that you have no additional money, so if, e.g., you establish an extra Chinook Sqn to ease the workload on 18 and 27, that cost would have to be offset by, e.g., the loss of a Sqn somewhere else.

The floor is open.

And if you read the bollox you are spouting before you hit the send button you no doubt would wish it would swallow you up whole and save you further embarresment!

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Am I plagiarising others' opinions or am I making it up? You don't seem able to decide.

Some people seem to have bought so deeply into the 'lions led by donkeys' school of thought that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the people who have to make the choice between one more Typhoon or 500 more lineys might actually examine all the options before making that decision. It's easy to sit here and say we need both, of course we do, but there is one all-important limiting factor...money. And that is not set by anyone in a blue suit, as we all know.

For your information, my opinion is my own and it is based on both facts and observation.

But let's take this forward now. If you were Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird and you had to support 2 operations with a trained strength of 41000, 3000 of whom are actively deployed at any one time, how would you persuade people to stay? The only limitation is that you have no additional money, so if, e.g., you establish an extra Chinook Sqn to ease the workload on 18 and 27, that cost would have to be offset by, e.g., the loss of a Sqn somewhere else.

The floor is open.

There is no such thing as 18 and 27 (from a groundcrew perspective) its all run via ExCes, a centralised eng squadron. Off Topic The only people on 18/27 are aircrew.

 

[Downsizer]

There is no such thing as 18 and 27 (from a groundcrew perspective) its all run via ExCes, a centralised eng squadron. Off Topic The only people on 18/27 are aircrew.

You must be mistaken....W/C Jam Tomorrow cannot be wrong...

 

[True Blue Jack]

There is no such thing as 18 and 27 (from a groundcrew perspective) its all run via ExCes, a centralised eng squadron. Off Topic The only people on 18/27 are aircrew.

I didn't know they had gone that way but you have kind of proved my point. If we are to resolve the retention issues we must look beyond our individual station/airframe/trade boundaries. It's all very well saying it's all sh!t on JFH but improving things there inevitably just passes the pain somewhere else, i.e., GR4.

 

[Teh Wal]

...So you'll forgive me if I don't get all misty eyed at the thought of someones 10-15 year plan as I need to see somebody of substances 1 year rescue strategy to stop me from walking whilst I still can...

There is no 1-year rescue plan and there can't possibly be one. It would be impossible to fix it 'NOW'. The recovery has to be a long term plan to ensure that what we have in the future is correct and meanwhile, unfortunately, what we have continues to slide downhill but there will eventually be a point at which it hits the bottom... hopefully before then someone high up will have decided what the way forward is and will implement 'A Grand Plan' that actually works. Until that point the personnel currently serving are in for a ****ty ride, and even then it ain't gonna be pretty. But it will happen.

 

[Realist78]

Am I plagiarising others' opinions or am I making it up? You don't seem able to decide.

Some people seem to have bought so deeply into the 'lions led by donkeys' school of thought that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the people who have to make the choice between one more Typhoon or 500 more lineys might actually examine all the options before making that decision. It's easy to sit here and say we need both, of course we do, but there is one all-important limiting factor...money. And that is not set by anyone in a blue suit, as we all know.

For your information, my opinion is my own and it is based on both facts and observation.

But let's take this forward now. If you were Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird and you had to support 2 operations with a trained strength of 41000, 3000 of whom are actively deployed at any one time, how would you persuade people to stay? The only limitation is that you have no additional money, so if, e.g., you establish an extra Chinook Sqn to ease the workload on 18 and 27, that cost would have to be offset by, e.g., the loss of a Sqn somewhere else.

The floor is open.

The only limitation, it would seem, is that the airships are failing to convince the politicians that more resources are necessary and not an option. If the current trend continues, Badminton-Racket will be doing his own BF and see-off! However, given that the uber hierarchy will be close to retirement, are they that desperate to find a solution? I suggest not, they are reaping what they have sown.::/:

 

[MontyPlumbs]

The only limitation, it would seem, is that the airships are failing to convince the politicians that more resources are necessary and not an option. If the current trend continues, Badminton-Racket will be doing his own BF and see-off! However, given that the uber hierarchy will be close to retirement, are they that desperate to find a solution? I suggest not, they are reaping what they have sown.::/:

My thoughts are similar R78. Why jeopardise their career when so close to retirement or if they are pushing for the next big job (CDS for example)?

They should be fighting tooth and nail for our service, the RAF belongs to us all - from the AC new recruit to the current CAS. Instead, all we ever seem to get from the ivory towers is tot regarding fitness testing P.I.s, rhetoric regarding JPA and PAYD and the general feeling that "there are no American tanks in Baghdad".

The RAF has been in competition for resources (personnel, material and money) ever since it was formed, so there must be some other reason why morale is at an all time low.

My point about Chinook ExCes is that it is yet another example of an erosion of service identity. Our squadrons etc are part of our (relatively short) history and thus each squadron member should be proud of whatever squadron they are on. Without service and unit identity we might as well be a faceless, money-making PLC (albeit a badly managed one).

If they centralise engineering to save cash why not aircrew? Why not just have one giant RAF base and one giant RAF squadron with a plethora of aircraft types (we aren't far away from having a small enough air force for this!).

My point is, only 18 months to 2 years ago the big badges were peddling the "if you don't like it, then leave" message. Funny old thing that...be careful what you wish for eh sirs?

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Why is everybody jumping on TBJ's back ? He is entitled to his own opinion.

He is, however when he hints at plans made in the corridors of power and changes to come that will turn around the RAF, and yet those in power fail to communicate any of these solutions, the fact that he is the target of skepticism and disbelief should come at no surprise.

My point about Chinook ExCes is that it is yet another example of an erosion of service identity. Our squadrons etc are part of our (relatively short) history and thus each squadron member should be proud of whatever squadron they are on. Without service and unit identity we might as well be a faceless, money-making PLC (albeit a badly managed one).

If they centralise engineering to save cash why not aircrew? Why not just have one giant RAF base and one giant RAF squadron with a plethora of aircraft types (we aren't far away from having a small enough air force for this!).

Quite agree with you there Monty. Operating in Sqns is part of the RAFs history, and a strength, because it fosters unit identity and promotes teamworking. However keeping them as separate entities only for aircrew, smacks of aircrew trying desperately to keep job for the boys - i.e. 2 Wg Cdrs, 2 command structures. If the arguments to centralise are strong enough for engineering, why aren't they for aircrew? The headshed must bite the bullet and address the ridiculous imbalance that has created an organisation with far too many chiefs, and not enough indians to get the work done.

 

[fileeth]

Am I plagiarising others' opinions or am I making it up? You don't seem able to decide.

Some people seem to have bought so deeply into the 'lions led by donkeys' school of thought that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the people who have to make the choice between one more Typhoon or 500 more lineys might actually examine all the options before making that decision. It's easy to sit here and say we need both, of course we do, but there is one all-important limiting factor...money. And that is not set by anyone in a blue suit, as we all know.

For your information, my opinion is my own and it is based on both facts and observation.

But let's take this forward now. If you were Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird and you had to support 2 operations with a trained strength of 41000, 3000 of whom are actively deployed at any one time, how would you persuade people to stay? The only limitation is that you have no additional money, so if, e.g., you establish an extra Chinook Sqn to ease the workload on 18 and 27, that cost would have to be offset by, e.g., the loss of a Sqn somewhere else.

The floor is open.

I have it on good authority theat the actually total strenght for the RAF is only just over 38,000 - not only retention but recruitment are challenges that need addressing and the answer is not a simple one

 

[Tubby]

Am I plagiarising others' opinions or am I making it up? You don't seem able to decide.
They both say its half a story, you plagierised the half you heard about and made up the rest. Just like that response you got it wrong again. Try reading things properly

For your information, my opinion is my own (unless you read your bosses e-mails and then its his) and it is based on both facts and observation. (unless your bosses e-mails say otherwise)
your opinion would be ''my boss says this and I agree because ....''

But let's take this forward now. If you were Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird and you had to support 2 operations with a trained strength of 41000, 3000 of whom are actively deployed at any one time, how would you persuade people to stay? Do my job and harrass the government to use some of that fcuking deep war chest they do have, if I was worried about my pension, which in this day and age it wouldn't be at risk, I would quit and join BAe a little earlier for more money than I was already on and make sure everyone knew it was in protest.

As far as the quick fix, thier is one, all they have to do is keep people in for the 2/3 years that it will take for recruits to replace them, a healthy lump sum with a return of service of 2/3 years will see this problem dissolve rather quickly but a lump sum of a few grand after 3000 years like we have now doesn't quite cut it, especially when people see what the aircrew got, £50000 for 5years RoS, not a lot in the grand scheme of things but enough to keep those that are swaying in the mob until replacements are there. For pilots with flying pay thats about an extra 20% a year given in on lump sum and tax free. For an sac(T) the equivilent would be roughly £10/15 000 depending on RoS, if they are that desperate they would find that money, they just dont give a sh!t. Not discounting other ranks there that is merely an example, but as snec's are under paid it wouldn't be to much different really would it.

 

[Nec Aspera Terrent]

As far as the quick fix, thier is one, all they have to do is keep people in for the 2/3 years that it will take for recruits to replace them, a healthy lump sum with a return of service of 2/3 years will see this problem dissolve rather quickly but a lump sum of a few grand after 3000 years doesn't quite cut it, especially when people see what the aircrew got, £50000 for 5years RoS, not a lot in the grand scheme of things but enough to keep those that are swaying in the mob until replacements are there. For pilots with flying thats about an extra 20% a year given in on lump sum and tax free. for an sac(T) the equivilent would be roughly £10/15 000 depending on RoS, if they are that desperate they would find that money, they just dont give a sh!t.

Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.

I'm 4 years from my 22. I'll be going at that point. Offering me £50,000 to sign on to LOS30 wouldn't do it.

Sometimes it's just the right time for people to go. Thinking that we are whores who can be bought for a few quid doesn't make people feel anymore valued.

 

[Tubby]

I'm out aswell, wouldn't keep me in but plenty of people would think twice about leaving early if that money was on offer. Like I said, its enough to be a quick fix until the fresh blood comes through.