Trade Group 1 Pay Rise

[Cooheed]

Always makes me laugh that the Techies think they are the kings of the world...

 

[Bucc Boy]

This is my pet hate...Another made up job...

I can only speak for mutli engine crew detachments but give the imprest back to the Co-pilot or willing crewmen who then issues us and the groundies the cash we need for a period at our descretion...We still collect all the receipts to justify our expenditure and hand them over if they require on our return to homeplate...

We save the airfare (from experience the DAO flies out civair on the ADVON), the rates he would require, the accom he would require and the car he nearly always needs...

Before JPA we dealt with all this ourselves...the only difference now is that we have to fish receipts out of the bins (joke) to prove it...But the expense of having a DAO has to cancel out any savings that JPA promised to deliver...

many a true word spoken in jest.........me thinks!?

 

[glassestashthunderflash]

How come every pay thread eventually becomes a Clk Bashing Thread.

Most TG 17 personnel on here seem to think that you (TG 1) do deserve to be paid more, it is the RAFs loss that you are leaving in droves, all that experience draining away.

Stop bashing us lazy, self important pri1cks of TG 17 and find a way of getting more dosh another way, because slagging of people who (sometimes) try to help you out won't get it you.

Move on

It descended in to chaos when MWD came out with the statement (words to the effect) that no engineers have ever been charged or prosecuted with a criminal offence. I am guilty of throwing muck (to him personally) as I was enraged that he thought the only reason we aim to be professional was because of the threat of the law. As some one that has seen the loss of life in an aircraft incident I thought his view was somewhat clouded.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that it was, in fact, TG17 that took the lead.

Now, some more bashing!!

Click here and search for the following:

Admin Assistant salary - Average UK salary £25,607

I appreciate that the job above does not cover all that TG17 may do so here's another example:

Office Supervisor - Average UK salary £26,389

So what about:

Aeronautical Engineer - Average UK salary £39,182

Job description sound a bit glorified? Well I did get a Btec in Aeronautical Engineering through the RAF whilst at Cosford but here we go anyway, another one:

Aircraft Mechanic - Average UK salary £32,455

Ok, so the job description for all of these doesn't really tally with what we do in the RAF but I think the salary sets a trend, that is that engineers get paid more than clerks/adminers etc. So are we really just being soft and having a whinge about our pay? Is it comparable (plus the mythical X-Factor!) to our civilian counterparts?

Please don't come back with the PVR if you don't like it, or man-up! That is not the answer. There are serious issues about the pay that techies are (not) getting and even if everyone wanted to PVR they couldn't. Let's be honest we've all got commitments to our families and as much as we'd love to say "up-yours, I'm off!" we just can't, to much to loose with pensions and all.

However, just because some people are not PVR'ing doesn't mean they're happy. If you're not happy how can anyone be expected to perform at their best? What about when we all reach our 22? Will I be staying in (I'm signed on to LOS30) past 22 the way I feel now? No way!!

 

[rest have risen above me]

Always makes me laugh that the Techies think they are the kings of the world...

It doesn't take much to make special people laugh though....lol ::

Now haven't you a window you should be licking...


Bloody rocks one sniff of a fight and they start hanging around.....lol

 

[The Bowmeister]

Always makes me laugh that the Techies think they are the kings of the world...

We are :: Thats why its called The Royal AIR Force, because we operate Aircraft which need fixing by Aircraft Techies.

P.S. Haven't you got some gas chamber drills or Gun training to be getting on with DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Sospan]

We are :: Thats why its called The Royal AIR Force, because we operate Aircraft which need fixing by Aircraft Techies.

P.S. Haven't you got some gas chamber drills or Gun training to be getting on with DT_Xtremez_42:

Otherwise it would be....

Aircraft flies, aircraft stops, check fuel, aircraft flies as normal.....::

 

[True Blue Jack]

Otherwise it would be....

Aircraft flies, aircraft stops, check fuel, aircraft flies as normal.....::

Then,

Aircraft flies one or 2 more times and stops again. We call this the 216 Sqn drill. DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Talk Wrench]

Then,

Aircraft flies one or 2 more times and stops again. We call this the 216 Sqn drill. DT_Xtremez_14:

Whilst you say this in jest TBJ,

It is not difficult for a shiney to change staples in his stapler when his stapler fails to operate. And a pack of staples costs fcuk all.

Ask yourself why 90% of airlines don't have the same problem as 216?


TW

 

[The Bowmeister]

Then,

Aircraft flies one or 2 more times and stops again. We call this the 216 Sqn drill. DT_Xtremez_14:

Ah cool, u on 216sqn as well??? what shift you on?? or are you one of the collective "WE" who continually knock 216Sqn.
Haven't you got some paperclips to sort into length and weight and elastic bands to sort. DT_Xtremez_32:

 

[True Blue Jack]

Settle down, I picked on 216 because problems with AT serviceability are well known (God knows, there's a thread on arrse about it every other day); my attempt to re-introduce some levity to this thread was not a reflection on the professionalism and competence of the guys who keep those buckets of bolts in the air.

 

[Sospan]

Settle down, I picked on 216 because problems with AT serviceability are well known (God knows, there's a thread on arrse about it every other day); my attempt to re-introduce some levity to this thread was not a reflection on the professionalism and competence of the guys who keep those buckets of bolts in the air.

Or on the ground as the case maybe DT_Xtremez_14:

Back on topic, do they publish the date that each trade is reviewed ? I wonder if we have had a full trade review since we have multi skilled ?

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Now, playing devil's advocate, I note that this is a TG1 Pay rise. How do the aircraft engineers in TG2 feel about an armourer who services a pistol getting paid more than a multiskilled avionic/leccy working on aircraft? Considering my comment about armed guards being dangerous had scorn poured on it, shall we exclude armourers in total, and just make it a "Higher Pay for Mechanicals" thread?

MWD you really are an ignorant chod. Not least because the armourer who may be currently posted in an armoury servicing pistols, is qualified to work on aircraft. Indeed his last job may have been on a squadron fitting AAES, bombs, guns etc to aircraft. He has the technical knowledge to do that job, no matter where the air force has seen fit to currently post him. As an ex TG2 multiskilled fairy, I would bet that most if not all aircraft tradesmen have no problem with other aircraft trades earning the same. We have the same level of responsibility, similar lengths of technical training, and all rely on each other's integrity to ensure serviceable jets are put into the sky. Of course there is banter between trades, or between lineys and bay gays, but all those serving accept that they are only a posting away from being on the other side of the airfield (or armoury hatch in this case).

Aircraft technical trades deserve a higher pay award based on the following:
Length and complexity of initial trade training
Frequency and complexity of additional technical or special to type training
Frequency and level of responsibility (responsibility for human life being the highest category, followed by value of assets)
Frequency of shift or unsociable working (across TG as a whole)

Note these refer only to normal working, additional or differing levels on operations should be compensated by operational allowances.

And if you look at that closely (and this is no dig at them by the way) you can see the only difference between say old TG3 and the aircraft techie is the responsibility thing. Yes the landing aid might malfunction if serviced incorrectly, but the chance of it leading to the loss of an aircraft is less than if the techie leaves a plug to a powered flying control unit disconnected, or a tool in the flying control.

The answer I believe, lies not in the pay award, but in harmonising pay and promotion so that techies are certainly not disadvantaged (as is currently the case with the extra ranks not present in non technical TG rank structures), compensating techies for the 4 factors I've mentioned above, and harmonising the promotion system so that the RAF aircraft techies are not unfavourably disadvantaged when compared to REME or RN counterparts. If the RAF fail to do so they will continue to lose people such as myself who fail to see why I should accept that having jumped through every hoop the RAF set for me (from testing at the AFCO, to Q course technical exams, 18 month fitters course, fitness testing, annual GDT, the lot..) I should take all that responsibility, freeze my butt off climbing up dirty oily aircraft etc on a daily basis.

 

[unruly1986]

Aircraft technical trades deserve a higher pay award based on the following:
Length and complexity of initial trade training
Frequency and complexity of additional technical or special to type training
Frequency and level of responsibility (responsibility for human life being the highest category, followed by value of assets)
Frequency of shift or unsociable working (across TG as a whole)

Note these refer only to normal working, additional or differing levels on operations should be compensated by operational allowances.

And if you look at that closely (and this is no dig at them by the way) you can see the only difference between say old TG3 and the aircraft techie is the responsibility thing. Yes the landing aid might malfunction if serviced incorrectly, but the chance of it leading to the loss of an aircraft is less than if the techie leaves a plug to a powered flying control unit disconnected, or a tool in the flying control.

Do you think that ex-TG3 (Now TG4) meet your higher pay award `requirements`?

 

[mad_collie]

Aircraft technical trades deserve a higher pay award based on the following:
Length and complexity of initial trade training
Frequency and complexity of additional technical or special to type training
Frequency and level of responsibility (responsibility for human life being the highest category, followed by value of assets)
Frequency of shift or unsociable working (across TG as a whole)

Note these refer only to normal working, additional or differing levels on operations should be compensated by operational allowances.

Ex TG3 tick all those boxes, including levels of responsibility when supervising people on kit where the voltages are well above any that the AC trades deals with.

However,the trade has become that diluted recently, the chances of staying employed in those fields for the duration of your career is minimal. (Even if you have a T101 Q)

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Do you think that ex-TG3 (Now TG4) meet your higher pay award `requirements`?

No idea, just suggested suitable criteria for assessing comparative pay. Additionally there is what the closest civilian equivalents earn. The problem is the AFPRB has been handicapped by 2 pay bands for a vast array of trades. Why?

Pay 2000 if the aim was to harmonise between the 3 services, would have been better with 3, that you stayed in for your entire career, as both army and air force had prior to its introduction. Leads to the conclusion that the real aim of Pay 2000 was a huge cost saving.

(Fairly sure TG3 would have done BTW).

 

[Geeza]

People! We need to return to a bygone era when techies were the creme de la creme:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1950/1950 - 1478.html

"A word must be said about
the new technician ranks, for they represent
the most important—and, to many,
a most welcome—feature of the new
scheme. In the past it has been necessary
to withold promotion from many
skilled tradesmen, to prevent the establishment
for technical N.C.O.s from
being exceeded and the disciplinary
ranks from becoming overbalanced. The
technician career will permit every suitable
skilled tradesman to progress—in
pay, privileges and status — to an
equivalent rank of flight-sergeant without
alteration in the balanced establishments
for command N.C.O.s."

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Great find. Maybe some airships should take a read.

 

[T55]

People! We need to return to a bygone era when techies were the creme de la creme:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1950/1950 - 1478.html

"A word must be said about
the new technician ranks, for they represent
the most important—and, to many,
a most welcome—feature of the new
scheme. In the past it has been necessary
to withold promotion from many
skilled tradesmen, to prevent the establishment
for technical N.C.O.s from
being exceeded and the disciplinary
ranks from becoming overbalanced. The
technician career will permit every suitable
skilled tradesman to progress—in
pay, privileges and status — to an
equivalent rank of flight-sergeant without
alteration in the balanced establishments
for command N.C.O.s."

I especially like this bit on the next page:

"Techician NCOs will not be expected to undertake administrative work or station duties".

Where do I sign up for this RAF?

 

[Realist78]

People! We need to return to a bygone era when techies were the creme de la creme:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1950/1950 - 1478.html

"A word must be said about
the new technician ranks, for they represent
the most important—and, to many,
a most welcome—feature of the new
scheme. In the past it has been necessary
to withold promotion from many
skilled tradesmen, to prevent the establishment
for technical N.C.O.s from
being exceeded and the disciplinary
ranks from becoming overbalanced. The
technician career will permit every suitable
skilled tradesman to progress—in
pay, privileges and status — to an
equivalent rank of flight-sergeant without
alteration in the balanced establishments
for command N.C.O.s."

Off TopicWe also used to hang people in 1950.

 

[FootTapper]

MWD you really are an ignorant chod. Not least because the armourer who may be currently posted in an armoury servicing pistols, is qualified to work on aircraft. Indeed his last job may have been on a squadron fitting AAES, bombs, guns etc to aircraft.

There is one component on a fast jet that, if it fails, means the crew die. Because it's the one component that is their "get out of jail" card, their last roll of the dice so to speak.

That would be AAES.

Engines and black boxes and wings and stuff are handy like, don't get me wrong. In fact many aircraft make do without AAES, but for those who have it it's - literally - a lifesaver.