Air Land or Sea

[busby1971]

New contracts signed by individuals requires them to sign as understanding that they will be committed to serve with the Army and/or at Sea.

Does this mean that those who signed up or re-enlisted years ago, before it was included, do not have to work with an Army unit or be based on ships.

If not: why does it now exist

[True Blue Jack]

Tell us more. This is news to me.

[busby1971]

To quick for me,

Will source refs next week but away from the puter from Sun to Fri more info to follow.....

[Boarderlyne]

Also would like to know more. TG17 as a purple force could be interesting!

[ForgottenName]

Also would like to know more. TG17 as a purple force could be interesting!


Would that mean we would drag the Army up to our level or they would drag us down to their level. The RN, of course, would play the role of arbiter then pick up the pieces. Senior Service and all that, LOL.

[Humble Scribe]

Would that mean we would drag the Army up to our level or they would drag us down to their level. The RN, of course, would play the role of arbiter then pick up the pieces. Senior Service and all that, LOL.

A man of your experience & knowledge surely doesn't need to ask that question FN!! Since when have we not done what the Army want us to do?? Surely that was the intention of JPA anyway that shiney, writer or AG Corp could administer all 3 services; isn't that why we've started to pick up some Army OOA slots?

[ForgottenName]

A man of your experience & knowledge surely doesn't need to ask that question FN!! Since when have we not done what the Army want us to do?? Surely that was the intention of JPA anyway that shiney, writer or AG Corp could administer all 3 services; isn't that why we've started to pick up some Army OOA slots?


Er no, not the reason we picked up some Army OOA slots. But I suspect that we are going to enter into a new era, particularly in the joint arena where, I believe, that the RAF administrators will be much more proficient with the system that many of our Army colleagues. I am not trying to generalise here, but drawing on my experience of a number of joint tours.

[True Blue Jack]

Er no, not the reason we picked up some Army OOA slots. But I suspect that we are going to enter into a new era, particularly in the joint arena where, I believe, that the RAF administrators will be much more proficient with the system that many of our Army colleagues. I am not trying to generalise here, but drawing on my experience of a number of joint tours.

I agree. I have worked alongside Army and RN colleagues on a number of occasions. I find that RN Writers are very similar in outlook, attitude and level of professionalism to us but the AGC are light years behind. Apart from anything else, I have estimated from my experiences that at least half of all Army clerks are in that job because they were invalided out of another Regt/Corps. It shows in their attitude.

If JPA represented a drastic change for us that we are only now coming to terms with then the Army will be struggling for a long, long, time. In the meantime the more purple tours we do, the better able we will be to 'keep a steady hand on the tiller' so to speak.

[Humble Scribe]

Er no, not the reason we picked up some Army OOA slots. But I suspect that we are going to enter into a new era, particularly in the joint arena where, I believe, that the RAF administrators will be much more proficient with the system that many of our Army colleagues. I am not trying to generalise here, but drawing on my experience of a number of joint tours.

It may not be the whole reason, but it certainly makes it a damn sight easier for the Army to say we can't fill that slot anymore so any administrator will do. You are quite correct though, we are entering a new era where jointery will play a large part in our world and with JPA & the Tri-service discipline act etc there's no reason why it shouldn't. It's up to us now to drag the army up to our standard of administration kicking & screaming!

[ForgottenName]

Of course, we in the other Services always look on the Army as one organisation; it is not, the Army is made up of a number of war fighting organisation that, if they don't have a common enemy, tend to fight amongst themselves. And that is just the Regiments and the Corps, never mind the different Brigades each with their own Commander who decides how things are going to be done.

[ForgottenName]

Just had a look at the minimum requirements to enter the Army as a clerk. They are at: http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/Jobs/JobDetail.htm?armyjobid=AGC050%2f059&category=7

Then I looked at ours: http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/personneladmin.cfm

So, if the requirements are the same, is it because we have the opportunity to be picky that we get the better qualified person.

[Humble Scribe]

Just had a look at the minimum requirements to enter the Army as a clerk. They are at: http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/Jobs/JobDetail.htm?armyjobid=AGC050%2f059&category=7

Then I looked at ours: http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/personneladmin.cfm

So, if the requirements are the same, is it because we have the opportunity to be picky that we get the better qualified person.

Possibly because we train the administrator first & the solidier second (or have done until recently) whilst the army will always be soldier first. Also our IT system was far advanced from the army, and we have some magnificent trainers at SOFA!

[True Blue Jack]

I think this is one of the main differences:

On completion of basic training, you will receive a further nine weeks of trade training at the Staff and Personnel Support Training School in Worthy Down

More importantly, we trust our clerks with more responsibility early on. Army clerks very rarely touch pay until they get to Sgt. Welfare issues don't feature until WO2. Yet many moons ago as a very green LAC a Sgt twice my age sat down at my desk and told me that he had woken up that morning to find his wife had abandoned him and their 2 kids. The poor sod had complete faith that I would sort his life out for him. (After a few minutes worth of goldfish impressions, I did :PDT_Xtremez_27:)

[ForgottenName]

Or it could be that we trust our personnel a lot more than the Army. Their style of leadership can be more autocratic than ours; we mix the consultative and autocratic styles much more and to better effect.

[ForgottenName]

TBJ,I think we came up with the same thing at the same time.

[KingGuin]

Or it could be that we trust our personnel a lot more than the Army. Their style of leadership can be more autocratic than ours; we mix the consultative and autocratic styles much more and to better effect.

I don't mind where I work or whom I work with - indeed (as you know FN) I have recently finished a tour with the British Army. However in an increasingly purple environment I would very much like to be a WO2 and be able to implement AGAI 69, can you have a word with FLWO and make it so? Ta.

[Humble Scribe]

I don't mind where I work or whom I work with - indeed (as you know FN) I have recently finished a tour with the British Army. However in an increasingly purple environment I would very much like to be a WO2 and be able to implement AGAI 69, can you have a word with FLWO and make it so? Ta.

Apparently, this was a very hot topic on a recent AMLC course; FS's wanted to wear WO2 rank in all trades. I feel a GEM coming on!

[True Blue Jack]

Apparently, this was a very hot topic on a recent AMLC course; FS's wanted to wear WO2 rank in all trades. I feel a GEM coming on!

I know a lot of FSs who really had a field day when a WO2 20 years their junior tried to tell them what to do. I heard a recent (about 3 years ago) study into introducing WO2 rank for the RAF decided that it would devalue the rank of FS too much. Rebadging all our FSs as WO2s will merely shift the current inequality down one rank.

Far better in my view to keep the status quo. You can always shut the pongoes up by telling them we don't have second-class warrant officers in the RAF. :PDT_Xtremez_30:

Seriously though there are too many differences between terms and conditions of service across the spectrum for true jointery to be achieved at the moment. Take chief technicians, for example. Half of our trades don't have them. Those that do are not always technical trades (musicians, nurses, etc.). The closest thing in either of the other services is what used to be the Charge Chief in the Navy (rebadged WO2 a couple of years ago funnily enough). Yet the TG1/2 hierarchy could not function without them. Whatever the solution is, it won't be a quick fix.

[KingGuin]

[QUOTE=True Blue Jack;126206] I heard a recent (about 3 years ago) study into introducing WO2 rank for the RAF decided that it would devalue the rank of FS too much. Rebadging all our FSs as WO2s will merely shift the current inequality down one rank.QUOTE]

The study argued that it was a reasonable idea to ensure parity across the baord in a purple environment. However the RAF countered that it would not and could not loose it's single Serivce ethos. Additionally given the finanicial implications the Treasury refused funding.

If you recall at the same time it was suggested that SACs with 5 yrs seniortiy would be re-ranked as LCpls........yeah right!

[tommo9999]

There is more work being done on this subject by the ROAD team I believe. Not sure, but I think so.

[NotAnIDOYet]

I don't mind where I work or whom I work with - indeed (as you know FN) I have recently finished a tour with the British Army. However in an increasingly purple environment I would very much like to be a WO2 and be able to implement AGAI 69, can you have a word with FLWO and make it so? Ta.

Never mind the rank thing, just bring on the AGAI 69 - would help me with some of the problems in my workplace!

[shiny_arse]

Interesting comments regards purple admin and the differences in outlook between the Raf and Army adminer. Played the jointery game at Ay Nik a fair few years ago as jointery was getting itself up and running and as many of you have alluded the gulf is vast. The new army AGC WO posted in as CC quickly realised the potential of the SAC pool, by quickly reducing his AGC manpower quotas in order to employ fewer SAC's.

On a different note, back in the mid 90's had the joy of a L/Cpl trying to tell me what to do whilst working in the HQ BFFI admin office. Fair dues to the AGC Cpl who pretty much told her to wind her neck in, but can you see that chaos that a 2 year lance jack would cause trying to tell a 7 year SAC what to do in the office.

CO at Ay Nik cottoned onto this fairly early and basically told his army comrades that SAC's were to be treated at the same level as L/Cpls. However not everyone in the green world is as accommodating.

[vinnyvx]

Going back to the original post. I think including a paragraph on serving with the Army/RN is all about making a point to new recruits, in that you can and will serve with the Army/RN at some time in your career in the RAF. Watch this space, this is the very thin end of a very large wedge.....

This wasn't an issue in the mid 80's, then the only time you worked with the Army was when you did a once in a blue moon tour in the FI and you happened to work in a tri-service unit like HQ BFFI. With the draw down to 41K personnel, the number of OOA exemptions and the joke of a MES system we have, the burden is only going to get heavier. For instance, how can TG17 have more than 400 Sgts and a turnaround time of every 2 years for Sgts!

With regard to ROAD, having read the report, the LCpl/WO2 issue isn't covered. That idea got binned 3 years ago, essentially because it would cost too much in pay. Given that the RAF/MOD is always broke, it ain't going to happen. Anyway I'd rather see the money spent on fixing PAY 2000 and putting some decent % increases between ranks on promotion like the officer corp have. However, that ain't going to happen either.

[busby1971]

This post was originally about why we now have willing to serve with Army or at sea in our contracts, and it seems to have gone off thread to some degree.

Does anybody know why this new caveat was added.

On the jointry thing, whenever I have worked in a joint environment the biggest pain in the but for me is that the type of work carried out by me goes down a step or two. I prefer the empowerment (their words not mine) of doing something that challenges me and gives me extra responsibility, however if the job in the RAF was ranked the same as in the army there would have been more promotions and perhaps, just perhaps I may have been promoted and be carrying out the same job with not just the exta money (under pay 2000 I am vastly overpaid for what I do) but the status and other benefits that come with rank.

To bring this back on thread, as in my contract I cannot remember seeing any thing about working with/under the Army etc (signed in 98/99) do I have to? If so why is it now included?

Cheers

[True Blue Jack]

To bring this back on thread, as in my contract I cannot remember seeing any thing about working with/under the Army etc (signed in 98/99) do I have to? If so why is it now included?

Cheers

Is this on the contract signed by new recruits? The further service offers I have processed recently have been on the same version of the F6639A that we have used for years, with no special mention of working with the Army/Navy.

To answer your original question though, we all swore to "obey the orders of Air Officers and other officers set over me". So the colour of the officer's uniform is irrelevant; we will continue to do what we are told, where, when, with and for whom we are told.

Following this week's cabinet reshuffle we all belong to the Armed Forces of Scotland now anyway. :PDT_Xtremez_34:

[Realist78]

All this mention of contracts. Have you ever signed a 'contract'? I would like to see it in writing (not the attestation stuff).:PDT_Xtremez_08:

[True Blue Jack]

All this mention of contracts. Have you ever signed a 'contract'? I would like to see it in writing (not the attestation stuff).:PDT_Xtremez_08:

Mad Mo will tell you that a contract is when one party makes an offer that another accepts. The "attestation stuff" and all that follows are contracts; just because it doesn't say "contract of employment" at the top of the page does not make it less so.

[busbyboy]

I know a lot of FSs who really had a field day when a WO2 20 years their junior tried to tell them what to do. I heard a recent (about 3 years ago) study into introducing WO2 rank for the RAF decided that it would devalue the rank of FS too much. Rebadging all our FSs as WO2s will merely shift the current inequality down one rank.

Far better in my view to keep the status quo. You can always shut the pongoes up by telling them we don't have second-class warrant officers in the RAF. :PDT_Xtremez_30:

Seriously though there are too many differences between terms and conditions of service across the spectrum for true jointery to be achieved at the moment. Take chief technicians, for example. Half of our trades don't have them. Those that do are not always technical trades (musicians, nurses, etc.). The closest thing in either of the other services is what used to be the Charge Chief in the Navy (rebadged WO2 a couple of years ago funnily enough). Yet the TG1/2 hierarchy could not function without them. Whatever the solution is, it won't be a quick fix.


The study completed about 3 years ago concluded that the RAF could not afford the changes proposed, as well as the perceived loss of "ethos and identity". However, I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who has worked with the Army in particular would be more than happy for us to have LCpls and WO2s. The trouble is, as ever, that the AFB always bottle the hard decisions which make sense to everyone else. For example, instead of having 3 ranks of LAC/SAC/Jnr Tech, change this to 2 ranks of (AC anyone? = Pte/AB) and LCpl. As for Chf Tech/FS, simply change this to FS and WO2. The funding issue is a red herring in my opinion. What could easily be achieved is to have a mark time rate of pay in whatever the current rank is with increments as now (i.e. Chf Tech retains Chf Tech Pay although wears rank of FS, similar with FS/WO2). The LAC/SAC /Jnr Tech pay scales could work in the same way, although would take a little more working out. The other argument about established posts could also be worked out in like fashion. I don't pretend it is easy, but where there is a will there is a way. This issue is not going to go away in the climate of jointery, and IMO, is only going to become more difficult as time goes on. It must be faced head-on and resolved so that our people are not disadvantaged in the purple arena. No matter what the hierarchy say about our personnel being valued by the other Services for their expertise and experience, it all counts for nothing in the end with a bolshy LCpl, WO2 or even Maj/Lt Col.

[NotAnIDOYet]

... As for Chf Tech/FS, simply change this to FS and WO2...

That is fine for List I trades that have Chiefs, how do we apply it to List II? If I recall correctly JT and Chief Tech are technical grades rather than true ranks, designed to show the level of technical training achieved. Whilst I agree with the need for the ranks (cannot get my head around the SAC tech thingy so normally take the, incorrect, option of speaking to the Cpl!) I don't see how we can apply it fairly.

There was an Briefing Note kicking about a month or two ago about acting rank on operations. If the local commander sees the merits, he can appoint someone to a rank in theatre. If rank equivilency is a problem then the senior light blue officer can field promote someone. That should alleviate the problem on operations at least

[MontyPlumbs]

That is fine for List I trades that have Chiefs, how do we apply it to List II? If I recall correctly JT and Chief Tech are technical grades rather than true ranks, designed to show the level of technical training achieved. Whilst I agree with the need for the ranks (cannot get my head around the SAC tech thingy so normally take the, incorrect, option of speaking to the Cpl!) I don't see how we can apply it fairly.

There was an Briefing Note kicking about a month or two ago about acting rank on operations. If the local commander sees the merits, he can appoint someone to a rank in theatre. If rank equivilency is a problem then the senior light blue officer can field promote someone. That should alleviate the problem on operations at least

JT and CT are both true ranks, not technical grades. After the BETT report, SAC Tech was introduced as a technical grade to get around the fact the RAF had been told they had to lose the JT rank.

[NotAnIDOYet]

JT and CT are both true ranks, not technical grades. After the BETT report, SAC Tech was introduced as a technical grade to get around the fact the RAF had been told they had to lose the JT rank.

I stand corrected but this does not change the fact that they only exist in List I trades. A JT tried to order me about in my youth once, never tried again mind!

[MontyPlumbs]

I stand corrected but this does not change the fact that they only exist in List I trades. A JT tried to order me about in my youth once, never tried again mind!

Yes I fully agree with you. Theres no easy solution. There are far too many 5 minute wonder Army Lance Jacks ordering 10 year SAC/JTs around on ops, especially in purple situations like your describing (EOD is a very good example).

If we alter the rank structure there are going to be winners and losers. The only way to do it would be on seniority. Say any CT who has only been a CT for 3 years or less goes back to sergeant, any Ct with more than 3 years goes to FS rank. Like I say its not ideal but I can't see an easy solution to the problem.

[NotAnIDOYet]

Yes I fully agree with you. Theres no easy solution. There are far too many 5 minute wonder Army Lance Jacks ordering 10 year SAC/JTs around on ops, especially in purple situations like your describing (EOD is a very good example).

If we alter the rank structure there are going to be winners and losers. The only way to do it would be on seniority. Say any CT who has only been a CT for 3 years or less goes back to sergeant, any Ct with more than 3 years goes to FS rank. Like I say its not ideal but I can't see an easy solution to the problem.

IIRC that was the idea when they played around with getting rid of the CT rank a couple of years ago. Pay is not really an issue if you adjust the Sgt to 10 levels with levels 7-10 reserved for List I trades.

Even simpler would be to have the same system as the orrifices and only have 1 pay scale (with the exception of Tarts and Vicars). A Flt Lt Rock earns the same as a FL adminer and so on.

Often wondered why it is like this....

[MontyPlumbs]

IIRC that was the idea when they played around with getting rid of the CT rank a couple of years ago. Pay is not really an issue if you adjust the Sgt to 10 levels with levels 7-10 reserved for List I trades.

Even simpler would be to have the same system as the orrifices and only have 1 pay scale (with the exception of Tarts and Vicars). A Flt Lt Rock earns the same as a FL adminer and so on.

Often wondered why it is like this....

We have to be careful here because any change in rank structure could lead to a (further) erosion of service identity. The current RAF ranks have been around since the 1950s when the trades were reorganised and some of the old ranks (Corporal Technician etc) were abolished.

We are increasingly being shoehorned into CS95, Joint force this, Joint Force That.

If we harmonise our ranks, in the short term it would mean better equality on joint ops, but in the longer term I fear it will just make it easier for the RAF to become a corps in the Army.

[True Blue Jack]

If we alter the rank structure there are going to be winners and losers. The only way to do it would be on seniority. Say any CT who has only been a CT for 3 years or less goes back to sergeant, any Ct with more than 3 years goes to FS rank. Like I say its not ideal but I can't see an easy solution to the problem.

If we lose the Chf Tech rank in toto then it will go the same way as TG4 did (and like adminers when we had Jnr Techs - yes it's true - going further back technical trades used to have Cpl Techs in between Cpl and Sgt). You just assess each post and up/downgrade it as appropriate but the individuals in those posts would retain the rank of Chf Tech until promoted/discharged.

Sqn groundcrew would then be in the (example) situation of having a Sgt TM issuing orders to his fellow (and possibly senior) sgts on the trade desks. Not impossible to manage, but fairly difficult. Better to retain the rank of Chf Tech.

[NotAnIDOYet]

If we lose the Chf Tech rank in toto then it will go the same way as TG4 did (and like adminers when we had Jnr Techs - yes it's true - going further back technical trades used to have Cpl Techs in between Cpl and Sgt). You just assess each post and up/downgrade it as appropriate but the individuals in those posts would retain the rank of Chf Tech until promoted/discharged.

Sqn groundcrew would then be in the (example) situation of having a Sgt TM issuing orders to his fellow (and possibly senior) sgts on the trade desks. Not impossible to manage, but fairly difficult. Better to retain the rank of Chf Tech.

JT is great if all trades had them. Trying to convince the army that 4 blades in not necessarly senior to 3 blades is a nightmare (they were paras however!) I agree with not further erroding service identity, I do however think we could save a boatload of money by wearing green all the time, keeping our best blues for just that. Controversial I know but i have spent half my career in green and I personally find it more comfortable anyway.

Give everyone a shiney new RAF Stable Belt and service identity is retained!!!!

[busbyboy]

I fear the point is being missed. Forget List 1 and List 2 trades, simply make LAC = AC, SAC/JNR TECH = LCPL, CHF TECH = FS, FS = WO2, WO = WO1 and Bob's your uncle. Rank progression for all trades would then be: AC, LCPL, CPL, SGT, FS, WO2, WO1. All it would cost is a few quid for (blue) cloth rank badges. The other aspects of pay and establishments have already been covered.

BTW, I agree entirely about the RAF Stable Belts - should be on issue for wear by all RAF personnel in CS95. It doesn't seem to bother the Army a jot about not wearing them in the field, we should do likewise with an edict from on high (oops just saw a pink elephant)!

Whatever your view on the RAF becoming simply a Corps of the Army, do not speak in jest - it may just happen and sooner than you think. Regrettably, we have not learned the lessons of the Canadians, who had to undo it after 2 years when it was evident it did not work. But, the steamroller is moving.

[ForgottenName]

I fear the point is being missed. Forget List 1 and List 2 trades, simply make LAC = AC, SAC/JNR TECH = LCPL, CHF TECH = FS, FS = WO2, WO = WO1 and Bob's your uncle. Rank progression for all trades would then be: AC, LCPL, CPL, SGT, FS, WO2, WO1. All it would cost is a few quid for (blue) cloth rank badges. The other aspects of pay and establishments have already been covered.

BTW, I agree entirely about the RAF Stable Belts - should be on issue for wear by all RAF personnel in CS95. It doesn't seem to bother the Army a jot about not wearing them in the field, we should do likewise with an edict from on high (oops just saw a pink elephant)!

Whatever your view on the RAF becoming simply a Corps of the Army, do not speak in jest - it may just happen and sooner than you think. Regrettably, we have not learned the lessons of the Canadians, who had to undo it after 2 years when it was evident it did not work. But, the steamroller is moving.

I see a contradiction here. In the first paragraph you recommend that the RAF structure should be along the lines of the Army structure, then you speak about not jesting about the RAF becoming a Corps of the Army.

Surely, by not going down the Army line on ranks, it would be an obstacle to the latter.

[True Blue Jack]

So List II trades would go from Sgt to WO2 without stopping at FS in the middle? And a Chf Tech would be subordinate to an Army SSgt but would wear the same rank insignia? That sounds even more confusing than the system we have at the moment.

Under your scheme everyone would be an NCO on completing 12 months service and passing TATs. In the shiney world that would be great but compare a Regt Sqn with an infantry battalion, or MTDs with their RLC equivalents and I'm afraid you have caused as many problems as you have solved.

There are just too many other differences that have to be resolved first. Stretching a full Army/RN career to 37 years is happening but they are sensibly doing it over a long period of time - otherwise you would have a glut of 30-year old WOs blocking promotion for 25 years which would cause a black hole from which they may never recover. The way they are doing it will slow down their promotion but it will be another 5 years before we see the effects of that.

[busbyboy]

I see a contradiction here. In the first paragraph you recommend that the RAF structure should be along the lines of the Army structure, then you speak about not jesting about the RAF becoming a Corps of the Army.

Surely, by not going down the Army line on ranks, it would be an obstacle to the latter.

Fair point, however the idea is to maintain equivalency for our people in the joint arena which, believe me, is essential for all sorts of reasons. I don't think it matters one way or another (although I clearly hope I'm wrong), but I fear it will happen anyway. Just a suggestion to overcome the difficulties.

[Man in Black]

Possibly because we train the administrator first & the solidier second (or have done until recently) whilst the army will always be soldier first. Also our IT system was far advanced from the army, and we have some magnificent trainers at SOFA!

Having spent 4 years there at Halton & SP, I totally concur with that comment. May have gone downhill since my departure though...........(lol)!

[ForgottenName]

Fair point, however the idea is to maintain equivalency for our people in the joint arena which, believe me, is essential for all sorts of reasons. I don't think it matters one way or another (although I clearly hope I'm wrong), but I fear it will happen anyway. Just a suggestion to overcome the difficulties.

I was listening to the Trade Sponsor give a briefing at a course at South Park and he said that that was one of the challenges he faces.

[busbyboy]

So List II trades would go from Sgt to WO2 without stopping at FS in the middle? And a Chf Tech would be subordinate to an Army SSgt but would wear the same rank insignia? That sounds even more confusing than the system we have at the moment.

Under your scheme everyone would be an NCO on completing 12 months service and passing TATs. In the shiney world that would be great but compare a Regt Sqn with an infantry battalion, or MTDs with their RLC equivalents and I'm afraid you have caused as many problems as you have solved.

There are just too many other differences that have to be resolved first. Stretching a full Army/RN career to 37 years is happening but they are sensibly doing it over a long period of time - otherwise you would have a glut of 30-year old WOs blocking promotion for 25 years which would cause a black hole from which they may never recover. The way they are doing it will slow down their promotion but it will be another 5 years before we see the effects of that.

Nowhere did I say that RAF ranks would go from Sgt to WO2. There would be no Chf Techs, just FS, which is the same as a SSgt as far as I recall (OR7...ugh). Your 2nd para is your point of view, which is equally as valid as mine - but perhaps you could elaborate on the the problems you are referring to? It is good that the Army (in particular) and Navy are looking at stretching some of their careers out to age 55 - for non-teeth arms in the Army anyway - but it will be a long time before there is anything resembling parity of treatment without rank. And that takes me back to the bottom line, we need to look after OUR people, not worry about what the Army and Navy are doing. Until we do so, I fear this problem will only get worse. If I am wrong, then I will happy to be so. I only have (y)our best interests at heart, since it is all academic for me now.

[ForgottenName]

. And that takes me back to the bottom line, we need to look after OUR people, not worry about what the Army and Navy are doing. Until we do so, I fear this problem will only get worse. If I am wrong, then I will happy to be so. I only have (y)our best interests at heart, since it is all academic for me now.

Personally, I think that the trade is in good hands at the moment and that we are looking after OUR people. Busbyboy, I think I know that you know the politics that go on at cmd level, as do I from my humble position. I think that we should let the Trade Sponsor get on with his work; I have heard some good briefings recently and, in all my years of Service, it is the first time I have noted that the TS has some backbone to him.

[KingGuin]

the TS has some backbone to him.

FN that may be so but I hope that backbone doesn't break due to the strain of it's current workload.

[ForgottenName]

FN that may be so but I hope that backbone doesn't break due to the strain of it's current workload.

I think that the TS is made of strong stuff, but I know the bloke that he works with and I know that he supports him as well. Having 2 x WOs in there can only help.

[busbyboy]

I think that the TS is made of strong stuff, but I know the bloke that he works with and I know that he supports him as well. Having 2 x WOs in there can only help.

FN, I hope that you are right, but experience (34.5 yrs) says otherwise. I will be very happy to be proved wrong.

[Talk Wrench]

Bringing things back on thread.


After being sent to sea with RAF Harriers embarking on HMS Illustrious in June to July 1994 as part of a feasibility trial, I dug out my signing on papers to find out if I really should be going to work in a big tin tub.

In them, it stated that I would be liable for service by air, land or sea.

When I find the exact words, I will post them.


regards.

TW