PAYD - HQ Land your views please

PAYD

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • dont care as long as i get fed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#41
Does the PAYD system have sufficient flexibility in the system to allow for military life:

Some soldiers are placed on special diets by the MO, will there be someone of sufficient qualification in the kitchen to cater for this.

I am aware of some soldiers that have been allowed extra rations to cater for extra training that they undertake this is especially importamt for soldiers who may be attempting SF selection or other arduous courses, or soldiers training for particular sporting or adventure training events that conribute greatly to KAPE. Is this capability going to be deminished?
 
#42
Sven said:
[

-I believe that there is a detailed requirement for the diet of forces personnel with regards to calorific intake etc. Smaller portions would not supply their needs

-Like other restaurants messes and restaurants are not allowed to reheat cooked food. Once cooked, not eaten - chucked
There is a detailed calorific reqt (JSP)
They are not allowed to reheat food but they are allowed cook-chill
 

Fugly

LE
DirtyBAT
#43
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Soldiers have got exactly what is they asked for and what is written on the tin. The same amount of food as they were entitled to under the old system with the option to pay for more if they so choose.
No we haven't.

What we wanted was the the cookhouse to still privide what it did exactly the same, but to only pay for which meals we actually turned up for.

This "core meal" and all the extras farce is NOT what we wanted.

PAYD blows.
 
#44
The big problem with this is that under the old system we had properly trained chefs cooking food to a budget and a criteria without trying to make a profit.

What we now have is a company trying to do the same but provide the service and make a profit on £3.66 (or whatever the DMR is) per day. This is just not going to be possible at the same standard that the army chefs provided and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is a fool.

Further more the contractor is more likely to hire a cook than a chef for which there is a big difference. A chef is able to plan menu's and cook food from basic ingredients. A cook is basically able to reheat food.

The figures just don't add up.

Is a master chef still going to be on hand in the contractors kitchens to ensure that the needs of the service are met.
 
#45
Fugly said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Soldiers have got exactly what is they asked for and what is written on the tin. The same amount of food as they were entitled to under the old system with the option to pay for more if they so choose.
No we haven't.

What we wanted was the the cookhouse to still privide what it did exactly the same, but to only pay for which meals we actually turned up for.

This "core meal" and all the extras farce is NOT what we wanted.

PAYD blows.
Fugly,

First of all I was a great believer in the old system. However, it's gone, no longer ever to return. It's gone because the users said it was an unfair system, and quite naturally the MoD has siezed the opportunity and shaped its meal provision system accordingly.

To put a myth to bed you are getting under PAYD exactly the same amount of food that you were entitled to under the old system - the only difference now is that you cannot eat somebody else's portion.

No consolation but that's the reality I'm afraid.

PAW
 
#46
PAW - I suspect that the old system may not be as dead as you think. A fire in the block, a couple of youngsters not eating 'cos they have spent all their dosh on drink and women (and wasted the rest), a headline or two in the Sun how the MOD civil servants have stopped feeding the chaps in order to pay for their new chairs - you get my drift.

Surely we get the same amount as before less the 15% profit the contractors need to make.

I have worked on civvi contracts and there is no way any one of them would get away with serving the food that the contractors are giving the Army. Civvi firms, and I speak as a Territorial with vast civvi experience, would not get away with the standards provided by PAYD.

Another issue is the insistence of the contractors that no other food is served on Army property. I was told by the Church Army people that they were being forced to close down their cafes in Germany because of the contractors. This was in a canteen in Poland provided by these good people that served what the boys wanted. It was good food, it was reasonably priced and it was full of soldiers. The NAAFI outlet was a spotty youf selling fings, not much of which were bought.

I have been going to Sennelager for the past thirty odd years, I had a choice, formica Naafi cafe with pre packed microwaveable shiite or a wander over to the Church Army place for a bacon sarnie, cup of drinkable tea and no loud music. Apparently the Church Army place has had to close on the insistence of the contractors who know full well that on terms of service, cost and palatability they can't compete.
 
#47
putteesinmyhands said:
UKLF_Kat said:
thanks for your comments but please remeber that all contractors are governed as the Army chefs are by the DMR plus wages bills and other external bills.
Yes, but where they differ is that Army Chefs are not permitted to make a profit, whereas contractors must - not just to cover wage bills of the front-line staff and their management, but also (presumably) to encourage shareholders. Isn't the restriction of food outlets on camp one of the means to maximise profits via monopoly trading?

Other methods of increasing profits could be:
a) Reduce portion size (and claim this is beneficial in preventing obesity),
b) Charge over the odds for the non-core meal items (15p per slice of bread),
c) Source cheaper ingredients (this may infer lower quality, though still theoretically edible),
d) Reduce waste (accept lower standards of cooking, reduce portions, produce monotonous menus to ensure left-overs are re-presented).

I don't claim that these methods are in progress - my own experience is too little to give valid comment - but some of the posts in this thread seem suggestive of these practices.
A few observations.

I agree contractors are there to make a profit but they will make very little in the cookhouse unless retail options are taken. Retail is where they make their money - mainly in the shop.

Restrictions on other food outlets in camp are made to ensure that the contractors business case remains viable and the more profit made the more money comes back to the unit as gainshare.

Portion sizes must comply with JSP 456 and at least you have a choice as to whether to pay for retail offerings.

Quality of ingredients is controlled as all major contractors agreed to maintain the standards of food supplied as per the central food supply contract - what happens to it after it's delivered....

And finally, menus are devised with our military chefs into a 28 day menu cycle and must meet criteria laid out in the JSP.
 
#48
Fugly said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Soldiers have got exactly what is they asked for and what is written on the tin. The same amount of food as they were entitled to under the old system with the option to pay for more if they so choose.
No we haven't.

What we wanted was the the cookhouse to still privide what it did exactly the same, but to only pay for which meals we actually turned up for.

This "core meal" and all the extras farce is NOT what we wanted.

PAYD blows.
If you paid for what you previously ate it would cost you about £5 per meal!

Irrespective of who provides the meals there has always been a core meal entitlement. The fact that everyone ate those of non-attendees makes everyone blame PAYD for a bad deal.
 
#49
dingerr said:
The big problem with this is that under the old system we had properly trained chefs cooking food to a budget and a criteria without trying to make a profit.

What we now have is a company trying to do the same but provide the service and make a profit on £3.66 (or whatever the DMR is) per day. This is just not going to be possible at the same standard that the army chefs provided and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is a fool.

Further more the contractor is more likely to hire a cook than a chef for which there is a big difference. A chef is able to plan menu's and cook food from basic ingredients. A cook is basically able to reheat food.

The figures just don't add up.

Is a master chef still going to be on hand in the contractors kitchens to ensure that the needs of the service are met.
Hi dingerr, a Fool here!

It's a fact that the contractors can only make a few pence profit on core menu production and this is not where they intend to make their profit.

It's also true that under the DMR our chefs had money based on entitled strength to provide meals for those that turned up. With this in mind they always had a surplus to spend and so could provide very high quality meals at low uptake messes. Those at high uptake messes suffered with what could be scrapped together for the money available.

The contractors on the whole work with the same chefs to provide the service now and it is those military who are charged with ensuring the standards are maintained.
 
#50
V little to add to this, we are about to be hit by PAYD. However I gather from our initial briefing the costs are based on a soldier eating in the cookhouse / mess for 4.5 days a week and then going elsewhere.

Hence if the guys are in unit where they are stuck on camp for longer (ie 6 days a week) they are going to be paying more.
 
#51
I have no problems with the overall concept of PAYD. Soldiers should have choice on what to eat and where to spend their money. However, I predict that our wonderful Type Z accommodation will be obsolete in the PAYD era. Soldiers will start to demand the facility (as most adults do) to make snacks/cook food in their accomodation.
 
#52
Modfather said:
Hence if the guys are in unit where they are stuck on camp for longer (ie 6 days a week) they are going to be paying more.




You wont pay more at all (provided you only have the core choice)!

Breakfast = 99p
Lunch = £1.17
Dinner = £1.50
Add all that up and it equals your current daily charge !
 
#53
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
walt_of_the_walts said:
dingerr said:
The notion of soldiers having to pay anything at all for food whilst in service is fundamentally wrong, in or out of camp, at home or deployed.
WotW,

Including married and living out soldiers?
Err...On reflection, No. But in camp should be a benefit in kind IMO. But somehow, i doubt that it would improve the quality.

Where I work, Sodexho too have a monopoly. After us applying some pressure about sx months ago they have improved significantly (from abysmal to acceptable, occasionally good)

All that has changed is err..Nothing. We have had the same staff for over 6 months now, and not some clueless mong who will be there for a week and then never seen again. We are getting to know the staff, and they are working as a team and making an effort for us. I hope it gets beter for you and your colleagues on various camps. Perhaps if you keep up the pressure?
 
#54
egg_custard said:
If you paid for what you previously ate it would cost you about £5 per meal!
I'm not sure that's true. As I recall it, our QM once explained to me (20 + yrs ago!) that there was a significant difference between the sum deducted at source for a singla soldier's Food charge (which was estimated against 'comparable' civvie costs), and the amount given to the QM to buy that soldier's rations - actual costs.

The difference - surprise, surprise - was swallowed up by the exchequer.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top