Stacker Cpl Redundancies

[rafgirl]

So next week is fast apraoching and all is quiet!

Has anyone heard anything about what is happening at the rank of Cpl?

Ive heard a rumour that everyone who has applied has got it. Anyone else heard this?

Ive looked over and over the criteria and wonder what exactly they are going to be looking at for our trade in order to make a decision?

They mentined certain Qs that they want people to have but dont specify what they are and no one seems to know what they are? Espeically when it says just because you are good at your job doenst mean you wont get it if you dont have these Q's?

Surely Q's are relatd to what job you've been allocated at a unit by the WO or which OOA you've done? Hardly fair if certain people havent had the opportunity to do them (not because they are sickies etc).

Any comments would be appreciated!

 

[UlsterExile]

Not much on the grapevine regarding 2 Bananas, a bit more on the 3 Bananas and Floppy Sausage. It's all gone pretty quiet at the mo, for obvious reasons.

 

[trebor-g]

Lets hope it's not decided on spelling and grammar!! For your sake.

 

[Joseph]

What Q's?

What Q's?

So next week is fast apraoching and all is quiet!

Has anyone heard anything about what is happening at the rank of Cpl?

Ive heard a rumour that everyone who has applied has got it. Anyone else heard this?

Ive looked over and over the criteria and wonder what exactly they are going to be looking at for our trade in order to make a decision?

They mentined certain Qs that they want people to have but dont specify what they are and no one seems to know what they are? Espeically when it says just because you are good at your job doenst mean you wont get it if you dont have these Q's?

Surely Q's are relatd to what job you've been allocated at a unit by the WO or which OOA you've done? Hardly fair if certain people havent had the opportunity to do them (not because they are sickies etc).

Any comments would be appreciated!

Hi, I know that the Q's and competencies were dictated to Manning by the Trade Sponsor. She specifically directed that she see's the future of Logs (Sup) as being an Expeditionary force. The specific Q's would therefore be limited to pin down but I suspect they'll be R&D ish and DG ish. I would also anticipate that if someone has not been OOA as a JNCO for at least 3 years then they are very likely to be have been considered as a candidate. The Board will be looking for 'Added Value' to the service from each person! Do you bring 'value'?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Exactly what I'd heard too. The redundancy boards were very focussed on skillset and what you had to offer tomorrow's Air Force.

 

[Lcfcfox1]

Hi, I know that the Q's and competencies were dictated to Manning by the Trade Sponsor. She specifically directed that she see's the future of Logs (Sup) as being an Expeditionary force. The specific Q's would therefore be limited to pin down but I suspect they'll be R&D ish and DG ish. I would also anticipate that if someone has not been OOA as a JNCO for at least 3 years then they are very likely to be have been considered as a candidate. The Board will be looking for 'Added Value' to the service from each person! Do you bring 'value'?

The above statement is almost entirely correct, however even though some people may have had relevant 'Q's that is not an overriding factor in the equation, it is only one of six factors that have been considered.
And this goes across the board from Cpl upwards, there is no differentation at all in any of the ranks !!!

 

[rafgirl]

Lets hope it's not decided on spelling and grammar!! For your sake.

Mmm my typing wasn't brilliant was it lol. Brain trying to go faster than fingers!

What will be will be for all those in the bracket. Was interested in different opinions that's all.

As for 'value' to the Airforce - we all have our strengths despite having or not certain q's. It's the all rounders that deserve to stay if they wish.

 

[Mr Grok]

Considering that, according to our political lords and masters, the only ongoing OOA by 2015 will be the Falklands, basing your entire redundancy policy on the concept of an expeditionary RAF could be seen as somewhat foolhardy!!!

 

[The Nip]

Hi, I know that the Q's and competencies were dictated to Manning by the Trade Sponsor. She specifically directed that she see's the future of Logs (Sup) as being an Expeditionary force. The specific Q's would therefore be limited to pin down but I suspect they'll be R&D ish and DG ish. I would also anticipate that if someone has not been OOA as a JNCO for at least 3 years then they are very likely to be have been considered as a candidate. The Board will be looking for 'Added Value' to the service from each person! Do you bring 'value'?

Not strictly true. The Head of Branch DICTATES the future policy of the trade. Agree it is forseen to be expeditionary, but my sources are saying the biggest driver is fuels. That seems to be a big focus where the future lies.
Other posters have mentioned numbers for Sgts and Cpls. Well come Thurs and Sgts will be happy Cpls not.

 

[Stax]

Unless you know someone on the redundancy board who has been foolish enough to pass on any information to you then the majority of the "I've heard a rumour that" is exactly that, Rumour! We will see on the 1st what's what, until then leave it!!

 

[Downsizer]

Unless you know someone on the redundancy board who has been foolish enough to pass on any information to you then the majority of the "I've heard a rumour that" is exactly that, Rumour! We will see on the 1st what's what, until then leave it!!

It is however a rumour website, so really people are free to post any rumours they like....