Army at full manning

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by JustAnotherTech, Aug 11, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Got briefed today that people who sign off will not be allowed to sign back on because recruiting is so good at the moment.

    I wonder if Voluntary Redundancies will be offered soon too :D
  2. Look up manning redundancies
  3. Dont sign off then.
  4. The Army will be fully manned by late 2010. Directions issued to clear out all dead wood in Regiments using AGAI 67.

    So it will be goodby to malingerers, CDT+s, wasters, fatties and persistent defaulters.

    Those injured on Ops will be retained.
  6. AGAI 67. Hope these directions are legally tight, binding and within the ECHR frame work. I don't think the MOD don't want another Manning Control abuse like a few years back. Get rid of the bluffers and admin cases yes but not at the expense of the good or injured. I really hope they don't abuse the regulations to stealth cut the numbers like before. negating AFB 130 A etc. we are watching :wink:
  7. Fully manned by late 2010, where are all the High Threat ATOs going to appear from in the next 12-18 months?
  8. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    I think if the DM(A) ninjas were asked, the answer would be that the Army will be at full strength by mid 2010 (i.e. number of people = funded liability) rather than fully manned (right number of people in ranks/CEG etc). people use the terms indiscriminately, but there is a big difference in meaning.

    I'll get back to collecting train numbers now.....
  9. Flirting with thread deviation, given the tasks that the Army is being asked to carry out is it significant that the policy target of "full strength" or "fully manned" is achieved if the targets aree inapropriately low?
  10. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    Well spotted! What I didnt say was that funded liability does not equal the number of people that we actually need. It is the number of people someone deep in the bowels (and I think that term can be applied here) of the Treasury and other assorted finance geeks are prepared to pay for.

    CGS is on record as saying the Army should be around 107,000. Current liability is 102160.
  11. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    See my comment above about strength v liability. That is why you are may be being asked to rejoin i.e filling gaps in rank/seniority profile for a particular CEG
  12. You and me both...

    Do you know, I reckon that's a Hall Class locomotive at full chat....

  13. What I am waiting for is the cry that we are in financial trouble because the savings predicated on there being a permanent shortfall of about 10% in the manning levels, have vanished!!!

    "As we are now close to full strength, we need more money to pay the salary bills!" :D :D :D

  14. The 'Glide to full manning' is a joke!!!!! No one is getting out and still the crows arrive at the Regts and Battalions in droves. You do the maths. The MOD money men are in a panic. They cannot and will not pay over the manning liability but, we are going over the manning liability wether we like it or not.

    The 'Manning Levers' have to be used. Get rid of the of the 5% who take up the 70% of the G1 time! Get rid of those who are malingering on the sick for years. Fail a BPFA more than 3 or 4 times without a time improvement and you are gone. This is all good news but hides the fact that we are still not filling the critical ranks and trades.

    I think that full manning will be a good thing in about 36 months time when the current bunch of crows have matured and gained experience.
  15. Woah tiger, we aren't all fat you know. Wasters possibly, but not ALL fat.

    Can't wait for the next time you ask a "pertinent" question about JPA/Pay/Claims etc. I'll just sit there and "Osmosis" the answer to you, because you are obviously superior to me, and much more intelligent. Hardly difficult mind you.