Time for another 'E2E' study?

[Bluntend]

One of the reasons for more JOs is more likely to be to save money, rather than the more expensive option you indicate. A graduate JO will serve (on average) 6 years from completing IOT to retiring on a Short Service Commission. There will be no gratuity, and a preserved pension (at 60). This is cheap disposable manpower and easy for the accountants. The RAF will argue this offers flexibility etc etc and they can then pick the best to be signed on for a PC. Sadly, this is not the case and the only extensions to commissions have been for a couple of aircrew in that 18 months or so.

True in most cases, but at a recent forum/conference with PMA it was announced that some JOs are being awarded PCs from day one (irrespective of any understanding of their potential or lack of). As you can imagine this has put the backs up of a number of JOs not awarded PCs despite being consistently spec rec'd for extension. As you say, the rationale behind ditching current short service JOs is one based entirely on saving money and has little to do with whether the individual has anything to offer the RAF in the future. Worst case scenario is a bunch of JOs tied into PCs who lack any credible skills or potential but can't be got rid of by non-renewal of their contact at the 6 year point. Instead the RAF will have to make them redundant at considerable cost to the taxpayer should the decision be made that they are now surplus to requirements - another great idea from those whose long-term vision only extends as far as their own tour-ex.
To thin out the ranks, at all levels, by identifying ‘unnecessary’ posts rather than culling those who simply aren’t performing is incredibly poor management. You end up with those who can justify their existence remaining (for example GP Capts and above) and those who don’t have the top cover (for example SNCOs and below) being cut left, right and centre. To say that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water is a massive understatement – not only are we losing some of our most capable servicemen and women, we’re retaining many (often at the highest level) who should have been shown the door years ago.

 

[TheHogwartsBEngO]

I've had a quick scan of the PPRUNE comments and on the whole, they are supportive - a few picky holes have been found in the letter and I can see their point.

being one of the graduate JOs to which Bluntend refers myself, I do feel that there has been/ is some extremely short-sighted planning both in terms of not extending short-service graduates and the recruitment policy. When I passed OASC I was offered a short-service commission without questioning. It now seems that whether you were offered a permanent or short-service commission was a complete lottery and in fact the recruiters had no contact with the trade sponsers in determing the ratio of short/permanent.

The short 18 month tours that I have undertaken are now biting back - these short tours designed to give me a breadth of experience before becoming a proper grown-up have left me a master of none - not the way civilian industry operates - hence the whole job-finding thing is tricky.

I'm not totally bitter about that though (I've manged to land myself an excellent job offer doing something I will enjoy), but what is frustrating - as it is and always has been in terms of extensions of service and promotion - it's not the 'not being picked up' that pi$$es you off, it's the useless w@nkers with a complete lack of personal skills that do get picked up. And you can all think of many examples I'm sure.