TG1 goodbye Chf Tech

[unruly1986]

When techies are working in some locations on a daily basis, with civilian organizations that pay 2.5 times the amount for exactly the same job, the same place and the same standards it tends to rub salt in the wound that the professional value of the skills and knowledge that 'just techies' have is overlooked and taken for granted.

If the RAF wants to retain skills and experience, then the offer needs to compete strongly, and this means money. Logistics chains, HR, and chefs do not get paid the same as skilled engineers and technicians in other organizations, because the lever of responsibility just isn't comparable. This isn't arrogance either, it's just fact.

I think that 4ADs gripe is that most of what you’ve said applies to TG4 as well.

I've worked in such areas and know of a FS or two that used to get really wound up by a certain Navy CPO (knocking on the door for WO) who had only been in half the amount of time, yet was always ready to remind them of the pecking order.

CPO is OR7 so id be telling them to get f###ed if that was the case.

 

[Barch]

CPO is OR7 so id be telling them to get f###ed if that was the case.

According to this >> HERE << page they are both OR 7.

Hence the need to make current FS to WO2 and CT to FS.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Techies get Techie pay, Engineers are officers.

just add a little lol here

Technically, you are correct. That's how it works in EASA land too with Licensed personnel classed as technicians and those with degrees being classed as engineers.

In my current employment, those with a technician qualification and experience are treated as equals to those with a Bachelor's degree which recognises the level of work that goes into both qualifications, but only those with degrees can call themselves "Engineer".

Incidentally in the UK, Licensed technicians have managed to retain the Engineer component in their job titles (Licensed Aircraft Engineer) whilst the EU recognises the licence as a technician only.

There's a Brexit bonus right there!

 

[baconandeggs]

According to EPAT (old=Trade Sponsors) it's to cut out those occasions where a FS gets outgunned by a RN or Army WO2 when operating in similar roles in the joint environment, i.e JHC, F-35, and for clear parity when working with NATO forces.

Not worked in those areas so can't comment about outgunning happening, but the other question is what about the other trades then? Jointery isn't Eng exclusive.

EPAT've been looking to do this for years now.

I've read the reasoning, I still don't follow it. If people are going to but heads tri service then they are.
As for nato posts how many chiefs work in nato for this to be an issue? If someone from the Portuguese navy doesn't understand the rank so what?

Seems very minor fiddling that won't really solve anything important.

 

[Downsizer]

RAF doesn't currently have an OR8 which causes this problem, exaccerbated by having Chf Tech in certain professions as well.

Staff Sgt is not an equal to Flt Sgt, especially in those trades that have gone through Chief.

Furthmore the difference on AMLC was noticable between those who had been a chief and those that promoted to FS straight from Sgt.

 

[ady eflog]

The RAF has turned into the 'Keep TG1 sweet' brigade sod the rest. Give them Supp 3 pay, tech pay, and now give them OR8 on top of a £30,000 FRI! So rather than the RAF as a whole not liking the whole OR7/OR8 thing in the tri-service arena, it'll just be the forgotten professions wholl be left bitter and twisted and feeling massively undervalued compared to TG1. Time to introduce 0R3 and OR8 into the whole RAF and be done with it. One force my arse, rant over!

As i recall PSF, MT and Blanket stackers aren't running for Civvy Street. TG1 are running for the hills and without engineers there is no flying. The Change to 'Techie Pay' is coming with Professions and 'Skills boxes' you will get paid for whatever 'skills' the RAF values, examples given would be X-700 Auditor or Aircraft Q's where they were short of people.

 

[Cornish_Pikey]

Chief = FS (OR7)
FS = WO2 (OR8)
WO = WO1 (OR9)

If it's just a badge change then there is still the extra rank to get past.

Are the stackers/chefs/admin going to also get the WO2 rank?

I loved being a chief in a mixed service environment. No one seemed to know quite where you sat in the ranks and knew they were dealing with someone that didn't really have a care for all that military rank stuff. Me and another chief used to play nice chief, grumpy chief when going round and about on errands.

 

[4everAD]

What confuses me is how they'll introduce this? Give all current TG1 FSs WO2 rank, if so that solves nothing from their point of view. They're already on WO2 pay and all it does is add at least 3 years onto them getting to WO proper (will it now have to be called WO1?). All they get out of it is the WO2 pension.
What about the rest of the RAF? I'm a FS (non TG1) and I'm also on OR8 pay why don't I deserve to get WO2 pension/pay as well? I can guarantee you I've served longer than most of the TG1 FSs. I will be pretty pissed off suddenly being expected to call my peers Sir/Ma'am, the extra rank arguement doesn't completley work either as I also had to go through SAC and JT.
For years we were told we couldn't introduce WO2 in the RAF as the command structure/responsibilities don't fit that rank, a WO2 in the Army can be responsible for up to 100+ SP whereas a FS maxes out at about 50. We would only be able to have 1 or 2 WO2s on a large Sqn (so that means all the FSs can't be promoted) with only one WO1. If that happens the rank/responsibilities of the remaining FSs will be massively devalued. In my opinion the restructuring needed to fit this new rank in would be huge.
Also how would this work for the TG1 CTs vs the FSs in the wider RAF? You'd have the same situation we have now with Army SSgts where their next rank is WO2 but a FSs is WO1? How can a CT and FS be equal in that situation?

 

[Tin basher]

In my opinion the restructuring needed to fit this new rank in would be huge.

Perfect opportunity for a focus groups and steering comittee to be formed far away in HQ land obviously requiring multiple staff officers and hordes of lackies backed up by an extensive Civil service input team.

 

[Donkey871]

Having worked alongside both the Army and the Navy I believe that rebadging CT to FS and FS to WO2 would be a good move. The Navy re-introduced WO2 in the early noughties and it caused a few problems where Charge Chiefs who were happy to co-exist with FSs became WO2s and took great delight in pulling rank.

 

[Allflapnofly]

Bring back non-commissioned RAF Sgt pilots....Now that, would be a hoot.....

 

[unruly1986]

CPO is OR7 so id be telling them to get f###ed if that was the case.

According to this >> HERE << page they are both OR 7.

Hence the need to make current FS to WO2 and CT to FS.

Having worked alongside both the Army and the Navy I believe that rebadging CT to FS and FS to WO2 would be a good move. The Navy re-introduced WO2 in the early noughties and it caused a few problems where Charge Chiefs who were happy to co-exist with FSs became WO2s and took great delight in pulling rank.

Are you not now creating a problem for FS that existed for Chf Tech? By retaining FS in non-TG1 trades you’ll have a position where ex-TG1 FS outrank non-TG1 FS?

Rebadge Chiefs to FS by all means, but keep current FS as FS.

 

[walkingmadman]

Are you not now creating a problem for FS that existed for Chf Tech? By retaining FS in non-TG1 trades you’ll have a position where ex-TG1 FS outrank non-TG1 FS?

Rebadge Chiefs to FS by all means, but keep current FS as FS.

I'm not sure but I'm under the belief that TG1 and 5 FS's get paid from the OR8 pay table in comparison to non TG1 and 5 FS's who get paid from the OR7 which is the same as CT.

So despite being the same rank in name I think TG1 and 5 FS's do kind of "outrank"non technical trade FS's in the sense that they could be seen as Senior FS's so the move to WO2 won't change anything other than badge and title.

 

[4everAD]

I'm not sure but I'm under the belief that TG1 and 5 FS's get paid from the OR8 pay table in comparison to non TG1 and 5 FS's who get paid from the OR7 which is the same as CT.

So despite being the same rank in name I think TG1 and 5 FS's do kind of "outrank"non technical trade FS's in the sense that they could be seen as Senior FS's so the move to WO2 won't change anything other than badge and title.

Non TG1 FS's can also go into OR8 pay band, CT's can't. All FS are equal none outrank others. TG1 FS's start on OR8 pay to differentiate them from CT. This is where the whole inequality with Army WO2 comes in, if you're paid from the same rank table you should be equal. By the way Army SSgt's like CT's can't go into OR8 pay table. So basically TG1 FS and any non-TG1 FS with 6 years seniority are paid the same as WO2 but without the pension or rank.

 

[busby1971]

The more you leave the Service behind the more the rank structure seems ludicrous, wouldn’t it be easier just to dump the unnecessary WO2 grade across the board?

Fewer ranks and more bands/streams (sorry don’t know right term in 2024) would keep things simpler, and where necessary make them the highest OR you can get away with like the rest of Team NATO, of course this will never happen.

 

[muttywhitedog]

a WO2 in the Army can be responsible for up to 100+ SP whereas a FS maxes out at about 50.

There's the reason the RAF wont buy into it. On Sqns you'd end up with a WO2 as the Sqn WO and the only WO1 on the base would be the SWO.

 

[Barch]

I was talking to a trusted friend from RAF South Lincoln last night, on his squadron they are expecting the Chief Technician rank to be defunct by the end of 2024. He didn't know how they would rerank current CTs.

IMHO the logical way would be for current ...

WOs are renamed WO1. (OR9)

Flight Sergeants are 'promoted' to WO2. (OR8)

Chief Technicians are 'promoted' to Flight Sergeant aka Chiefy. (OR7)

Aviation Specialist 2 (Technician) are promoted to Lance Corporal. (OR3)

Other ranks remain the same.

 

[Barch]

There's the reason the RAF wont buy into it. On Sqns you'd end up with a WO2 as the Sqn WO and the only WO1 on the base would be the SWO.

Responsibilities are not just reckoned on the manpower.

 

[Barch]

How I envisage an RAF WO2 rank badge would look, with a King's crown of course.

 

[4everAD]

I was talking to a trusted friend from RAF South Lincoln last night, on his squadron they are expecting the Chief Technician rank to be defunct by the end of 2024. He didn't know how they would rerank current CTs.

IMHO the logical way would be for current ...

WOs are renamed WO1. (OR9)

Flight Sergeants are 'promoted' to WO2. (OR8)

Chief Technicians are 'promoted' to Flight Sergeant aka Chiefy. (OR7)

Aviation Specialist 2 (Technician) are promoted to Lance Corporal. (OR3)

Other ranks remain the same.

Big problem with that scenario is if you have to introduce this RAF wide for parity and fairness then non TG1 Sgts would jump OR7 and go straight to WO2. Imo that would be a terrible mistake, being a FS prepares you for the J1 issues you get when managing 50+ people, you can 'hit the ground running if you then manage 100+ at WO (1 or 2) level.