Still spending too much? Lets sack more staff!

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by sunnoficarus, Jul 29, 2011.

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. Don't be daft, we need typhoon submarine killering aircraft. and lots of upper levels of management, we don't need the low level minions. So we'll get rid.
     
  2. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    by getting rid of so many staff one would hope that means less departments to shuffle stuff around racking the price up.

    I mean which muffin came up with a transport/tanker aircraft which can take cargo but doesnt have the loading door, carries fuel but cant fuel itself or take on fuel from another (allthough I think its an excuse to claim we still need cyprus for refueling) and cant make ascension without the stop at senegal. everyone else managed to get that deal and cheaper than we did.

    or the FRES bollocks where they've spent 500 million and havent even got a garage full of afvs to justify it.

    sack the lot, give the units the budget to buy what they like from somewhere which makes stuff that works.
     
  3. Or it will mean less of those nasty CS staff saying - Excuse me General/Air Marshal/Admiral whatsit, you're running over budget on your latest shiny toy again.
     
  4. Because historically they have done a good job at that haven’t they ^_~
     
  5. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    I like to see MOD CS sacked. It means my job's secure for a few more years. After all, they're not reducing the work load in MOD by rationalising and improving how they do things, in fact, they're making it more complicated. And its generally the more competent who take voluntary redundancy because they know they can get a job outside. So more work, less staff, less knowledgeable people doing the work equals more outsourcing. To me. Thank you.
     
  6. Boldnotold

    Boldnotold LE Book Reviewer

    Like what you say Bouillabaises. They don't seem to have learned that getting rid of cheap people who do work and giving the work to outsource companies, who rarely get out of bed for less than 40% margin, isn't actually saving money. Especially when you take into account the army of expensive 'contract monitors' they have to employ!
     
  7. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    One of the big growth industries around Bristol - defence consultancy companies. Mostly staffed by ex-MOD CS and ex-military Abbey Wood desk officers, doing the same jobs they were doing but for profit.
     
  8. ..........................

    Gives us all a chance when the brown envelope falls through the door!!
     
  9. I believe someone also pointed out that as these freaks of the air are PFI, if the civvies who own them don't get a few flights out of them too the RAF pay them for the priveledge...

    bonkers. Bomber Harris would be bombing Dresden with whomever thought that abortion up, pref on fire but either way.
     
  10. We monitor our contracts, do we?

    News to me... :)

    Litotes
     
  11. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Cleverly the MOD employ one lot of consultants to do the engineering tasks and another lot to monitor and manage the ones doing the work. MOD monitor them both
     
  12. It seems only a good thing to get rid of MOD staff, though granted I have no idea how the MOD operates, or what exactly it does, surely all we need are tanks planes and guns and were good to go? surely... all the paper cannot be... necesarry.
     
  13. And on the boring realistic note, personnel costs are the only immediate way of making an in-year saving; EP is generally tied into contracts that can't bring the saving required *right now*.
     
  14. "It seems only a good thing to get rid of MOD staff, though granted I have no idea how the MOD operates, or what exactly it does, surely all we need are tanks planes and guns and were good to go? surely... all the paper cannot be... necesarry. "

    Please tell me this is a poor attempt at a wah?