Discussion in 'REME' started by sirbobbymoore1966, May 1, 2006.

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. 22 yrs service, pension and new career

  2. Serve till age 55, slower promotion but job for life

  1. Ok, here's the poll.......
    Keep service in the Corps as it is or extend till age 55?
  2. If only the corps would take on this option, instead of losing all its experiance and knowledge after 22yrs of gaining it!!!!!!
  3. I have made this point on one of the MCM Div Roadshows, answer is the Corps doesnt want 50 yr old soldiers serving in Inf LADs apparently as this could cause problems.....strange that the AGC are moving to this though eh as as we all know there are absolutely NO AGC Dets at Inf Battalions?!
    Wake up DEME(A) and smell the coffee will you. Instead of mucking about with the CEGs in a wasted effort to man the posts we have why not twin stream.....there must be loads of posts (TA PS, Trg Depots, ACIOs etc) where we could employ soldiers not suitable for front line Inf Bns; what the criteria would be I would hate to hazard a guess.
  4. Athough not against the idea as you can still soldier at 55, just the pain of trying to find a job at 40 is bad enough, can't even think at 55
  5. who would want to work at the age of 55 anyway, especialy after all those yrs served. would be nice to put your feet up and relax on your pension dont you think. coz after that amount of time served the pension would be rather nice dont you think!!
  6. The RAF has much longer terms of service so it could be done. However, you would have to accept the problems that would come with a change to that system: later promotion, a skewed rank/age balance which would be out of step with the rest of the Army, and the increased difficulties of resettling and starting a second career at a later age. I'm all for increasing the length of service from 22 years to, say, 25 for those who want it. That would certainly solve a lot of recruiting/manning shortages (and allow guys to earn a bit more pension). The big problem is that most of the jobs where a senior REME tradesman/artificer would be of most employable eg ATRA and ABRO have been so heavily civilianised in recent years that there are insufficient posts available. The logical answer is to turn back the clock a bit and re-militarise some jobs - but can you really see that happening?
  7. I don't think thats an option somehow, we're having probs filling the posts we have now so re militarising would just create more gaps but thosed sort of posts would be ideal though eh.
    I'm really not sure what the best answer is here but I do think that just saying no without putting it out to the Corps members smacks of arrogance from Arborfield/Glasgow if they genuinely believe they know better than the majority.
  8. The NZREME, Aus REMEs and the Canadians all do it. Where is the hardship, i have served alongside under 20's who couldnt pass Annual tests asked of them at 1st Line so why not employ 'earld blerks' who can?!
    I'd at least like the option of serving longer, but doing back to backers at 50+ might not be everyones cup of tea mind.
    The REMEs will be dead and buried by the time im 40 let alone 55 anyway!
    Long live the Corps! (whichever one we will be amalgamated into)
  9. Having worked alongside the Royal Air Farce, there are a lot of full screws who would have been sergeants looking at staffy in the army. The Royal Air Farce has a weird promotion structure any way. Get rid of some of the old and daft top brass working in their ivory towers. Some of them can just get to the top of the tower with a stannah stair lift. they dont worry about pensions as what they do is procure a expensive item for the army (without consultation)and live of the golden handshake/backhander from the company they procured from in their retirement.

    Nuff said.
  10. Crikey armadillo you're a bit of a cynic eh?!
    As if one of the top REME bods would do that, I dunno how you can even suggest such a thing, how dare you!! lol ;)
    Poll so far seems to be a 75/25 split, thats pretty conclusive if you ask me.....bets on anyone in Arborfield taking notice of it anyone?? Thought not!!
  11. what about 48 those who join at 26 finish their 22 there why not every one
  12. As long as you keep yourself in good mettle. I cant see a problem with extended service untill 55. My father runs rings around civilian apprentaces while on adventure training weeks & hes well into his 60s. I also know of one TA guy who was made redundant from his civiy job at 49 & then spent the next 6 years as a regular soldier near enough. Ok back to back tours of Bosnia, FI etc maybe not everybodys idea of a good time but it proves there are guys out there who can cut the mustard. At the other end of the scale it would also be nice to see the joining age upped abit aswell. But thats another thread all on its own..

    Regards LT.
  13. Where did you pluck that from!
    I reckon we might get the whole '22 yrs service on top of what you joined at' will equal a new number bit!
    Ha ha
    I guess you were 26 then. :lol:
  14. Come on fella's. Surely you cant be saying that if its ok for the air force then its ok for us? Similarly The Aussies and Canadians. We are a heavily deployed branch of the armed forces and lets face it soldiering is a young mans job. Yes, we do lose lots of experience when a tradesman retires at 40 and yes there are guys out there who could still do the job for at least another tour but keeping them in would deny the younger generation the chance to gain the same experience.
  15. I think there is a lot of scope for allowing people to serve past 22yrs (not just for 25 what sort of idea is that). All we need to do is slow down promotion, everyone will still get the chance to gain experience. As long as a soldier is able to pass his annual fitness tests why shouldn't he continue to serve, officers are able to lead a Bn into Ops whilst at a very senior age, why not NCOs. They could also utilise the Manning Control Points properly like the RAF and Navy do i.e. if you are not qualified and recommended for the next promotion then you do not stay in. Why waste so much money training personnel to a high standard just to then get rid of them after possibly only 6 years (the minimum time required post Tiffy), what type of company can continue to survive using these policies especially as there are even fewer people getting qualified nowadays.