**British Armed Forces Discussion Thread**

RoboCod said:
I hear what you're saying about loss of potential earnings and agree. However, it irks me slightly that people are stating they have taken a pay cut. No they haven't, the potential earnings have fallen, but they were never at the £29k point anyway,their pay hasn't cut. It's a subtle difference and if we're being honest, how many SACs/Pte do you know who have their life and finances planned out as if they are reliant on that £29k salary? It will make not one bit of difference to the millionaires weekend crew. I know I don't plan ahead for my increments, I live on what I earn here and now, paying my mortgage and running my car. Anything more in future just increases my living & saving budgets.


Needless to say, the forces lose out through the whole thing. Was anyone actually expecting good news from NEM though, seriously?
Click to expand...

Have you went up a payband? :p

O wait, yep you've went up to supplement 3, of course you don't care.
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
Typical non-techy insular view.

SAC is non-supervisory, SAC(T) and Lcpl are self-supervisory. A difference in responsibility I'd say!
Click to expand...

The tech trades are pretty binary, it's easy to identify that a rank has more responsibility bestowed upon them. It's not true across the board. For example, some of our aircrew snco have a much greater responsibility on them than their commissioned counterparts. Simply, responsibility does not necessarily constitute greater pay. I've worked in a place where the SAC was responsible for 4 LCpls.
 
I am just disappointed that my pay isn't gonna increase in the way I had pictured. Although to be honest my pay was gonna sit still until I had hit Cpl anyway.

I dont lose out.. YET. Then in the long run Ill be worse off.

Doesn't really bother me that much but I do have a Mortgage and future plans that do rely on my income. Should my other half leave work to have children or something, we are going to be earning a bit less than otherwise.

With regards to trade responsibility. Common sense should dictate that those who are working hands-on with aircraft are opened up to far worse consequences than those who earn their supplement through their ability to use Excel.
 
Yeah we can all make blanket statements about trades but some definitely do very simple jobs that require no real thought or specialist skills / knowledge. Trades wages needed separating but they did this really badly.
 
RoboCod said:
FWIW, the admin bods are in supp 1.
Click to expand...

I dunno what fwiw means but yes. I'm glad there is a separation but the separation is poor and below what is needed for the so called retention they claim to want.

People who were in two minds are already wanting to PVR since this announcement.

Admin trades have a better promotion path, less people to compete against in their office and no chief tech rank to slow them down either. They have a pretty decent deal for what they do.
 
RoboCod said:
OK so to me that reads that it might or it might not. It's a little vague. At least 3 years could mean actually 4 or more. Very dubious. I don't see that the new max is £4k less however. The current max for an sac is £29947. Supp1 max is £27398 (which no one on high will shift to)and the the supp 3 max is £28749.

I'd be very surprised if anyone ever got bumped down in pay though.

Edit: I missed that SAC(T) Can only reach level 8. Still, it isn't 4k less, particularly as most of the techs are on supp3.
Click to expand...

£29947 - £26,868 = £3079.

Sorry it would be a 3k pay loss, not 4k.

Yes it means that it may or may not. That's why I said pay is only protected for 3 years.

RoboCod said:
I didn't go up to anything, and of course I care, I just think it could have been much worse than some people think.
Click to expand...



Level 9 SAC(T) in supp 2 who get promoted to CPL now only get an £80 pay rise. That is a joke.

If they don't get promoted within 3 years, they could well lose over 10% of their pay. They might not but it's not a great situation to be in.

You're right, it could be 'much worse' but that statement means absolutely nothing. WW2 could have been much worse. It isn't as bad for some as it is for others granted, but the two points above are huge blows for the people involved.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand people finding the reasoning for all this...

At the end of the day people have been conned. They signed up to certain terms and conditions and now it has changed (for the worse).

With no way of being able to voice an opinion that will actually be heard or taken notice of.

But it's the armed forces and people have to deal with it, is that the reasoning behind everything forever and a day is it?
 
Yes the pay is sometimes ok for what it is. But that is not the point.

Slowly but surely every little benefit of being in the armed forces seems to be getting chipped away.

Remember that one of the aims of this so called deal was to help with retention as it states in that booklet.

Does anyone seriously think that it has and will achieve that aim? If not then surely it's a complete failure from the start
 
lemonkettaz said:
Yes the pay is sometimes ok for what it is. But that is not the point.

Slowly but surely every little benefit of being in the armed forces seems to be getting chipped away.

Remember that one of the aims of this so called deal was to help with retention as it states in that booklet.

Does anyone seriously think that it has and will achieve that aim? If not then surely it's a complete failure from the start
Click to expand...

I think some people have benefited from it. I couldn't say who or by how much that is though.
 
arctine said:
I think some people have benefited from it. I couldn't say who or by how much that is though.
Click to expand...

I can, any SAC who was previously on lower pay band, because at a minimum supp 1 gets a payrise.

I know techies have a reputation for being premadonnas and moaning about this sort of thing, but sorting out jpa payments and signing an aircraft fit for flight should not be reflected the same way paywise.

Is an adminner potentially going to prison for making a mistake? Because that's the risk vs reward that gets reflected in civvy street, an adminner job is 18k vs aircraft work at 40-50k
 
Boycey0211 said:
I can, any SAC who was previously on lower pay band, because at a minimum supp 1 gets a payrise.

I know techies have a reputation for being premadonnas and moaning about this sort of thing, but sorting out jpa payments and signing an aircraft fit for flight should not be reflected the same way paywise.

Is an adminner potentially going to prison for making a mistake? Because that's the risk vs reward that gets reflected in civvy street, an adminner job is 18k vs aircraft work at 40-50k
Click to expand...

I was always of the understanding that the responsibility was on the person who signed the work off and that person was usually a sgt/chief tech or maybe the JO? Therefore the onus is on him and not his techs? Perhaps my experiences of sqns are different and other squadrons run things differently? That or I've completely made it up from fuzzy memory :p
 
RoboCod said:
I was always of the understanding that the responsibility was on the person who signed the work off and that person was usually a sgt/chief tech or maybe the JO? Therefore the onus is on him and not his techs? Perhaps my experiences of sqns are different and other squadrons run things differently? That or I've completely made it up from fuzzy memory :p
Click to expand...

Hedge said:
It's corporal level that has supervisory signature unless the work requires indies which are done by Sgt.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Cpl has 2nd signature resposibilities signing off on work carried out correctly. SNCO's mainly coordinate paperwork outside of the job and as said are responsible for scoping indies (finding work required) however its also a Cpl's job to raise the requirement for those, which is a massive 'do it 100% correctly' deal. Also cpl's can get special auths to carry out independant inspections.

However take swing shift as an example. This consists of 1 Cpl and 2 SAC's, possibly not even SAC-T's. The Cpl raises all the flight servicing paperwork and does the necessary NCO checks while the two lads service all the jets, which can be up to 8 per night. After all that you've got 2 lads on the lower pay band signing to say the jet is safe and ready for flight, and the Cpl's signature declaring the servicing is complete.

Chief Techs are mainly tech issues/desk managers/sort out issues and JO is mainly involved in the more in depth engineering issues.

arctine said:
SAC(T) are allowed to self supervise, given the auth.
Click to expand...

They are, I'd imagine thats far more prevalent in your trade though, only seen it happen a handful of times in ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom