Promotion freezes as cuts bite in Navy

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by McGrew, Jan 6, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

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

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy06.xml

    The Daily Telegraph reports (link above) Promotion freezes as cuts bite in Navy.

    [marq=right]"But Lewis Page, a former Navy officer who wrote Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, an acclaimed book about MoD overspending, said cuts were necessary for the 1,100 Lt Commanders in the Navy because a "staggering" 17 of the rank were based ashore for every one at sea."[/marq]

    While the enormous number of lt cdrs (always suspected as much) is staggering surely this cannot be right? I wonder what the attitude would be if it were petty officer to chief that was being frozen?
     
  2. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    That story ony tells part of the Galaxy Publication that was released.

    It also neglects to mention that CPO to WO Promotion is also affected as is selection for 2OE.
     
  3. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    Sorry, scratch 2OE and insert 'Extended Career' :roll:
     
  4. thats fine aslong as the ranks from AB to PO is still viable
     
  5. Makes me think there's no point in turning up for my imminent AIB!!!
     
  6. Not too sure what happened with the scrolling text - it read:
    But Lewis Page, a former Navy officer who wrote Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, an acclaimed book about MoD overspending, said cuts were necessary for the 1,100 Lt Commanders in the Navy because a "staggering" 17 of the rank were based ashore for every one at sea.
     
  7. How did you pass the entry medical with such poor sight ? :wink:
     
  8. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    I wouldn't pay much attention to Page, McGrew. He comes across as being a very bitter and twisted person who couldn't get his 2 1/2's!

    So is it really a surprise that he has had a dig?
     
  9. The thing is, if the stats published in the latter part of '06 are to be believed, then we have more Lt Cdrs than Lt's, which is wrong in any calculation. So dare I say it the reduction in this instance is neccessary!

    However, there is talk we need all these higher ranking officers to compete at meetings with the other 2 services, especially those that wear a lighter shade of blue, who go into these events very high powered. As for people not being rewarded with Ship "drives", the way things are/will go they wouldn't anyway.

    It's a shame the article didn't pick up on the fact that 2OE, WO's and CPO's will also be effected, because let's face, the Lower Deck could do with the boost, at all levels- from manning to drafting cycles to accomodation.

    I am presuming, the money saved from this shedding of jobs will, or can't be used for these purposes, despite the Lower Deck, understandably, making up the majority of the Frontline- it is exactly what it says in the breif- a money saving c
     
  10. Think on, i did it 3 years ago and am now considering leaving more than at any time in the past...
     
  11. So where can we read this galaxy publication on-line if its available to bleedin' journalists?
     
  12. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

  13. There are too many Lt Cdrs' and most are really uniformed civil servants who will never go to sea again. But it should be handled honestly and fairly. This idea seems designed to p1ss people off so they leave rather than offer redundancy properly. I don't care for the argument that we need them to fight the other services as we should be preparing to fight the enemy and structuring our officer corp for sea service rather than for competing with the RAf or Army.
     
  14. Sorry Matelot, that link just went to the library.........
     
  15. I actually concur fully with your last Shippers!

    However, the alleged make up of the meeting that caused us to lose Carriers in the 60's does make you wonder if there is something in the talk. But it would be a sad day indeed, (actually could it get even sadder?), if there were some truth in it.

    Anyway, the point I think is the apparently underhand way that the required drawdown is being executed.
     
  16. I actually concur fully with your last Shippers!

    However, the alleged make up of the meeting that caused us to lose Carriers in the 60's does make you wonder if there is something in the talk. But it would be a sad day indeed, (actually could it get even sadder?), if there were some truth in it.

    Anyway, the point I think is the apparently underhand way that the required drawdown is being executed.
     
  17. I believe that it is even more underhand than we realised because the idea to close a naval base now makes sense with the knowledge of scrapping (sorry: mothballed) of so many ships and scrapping (sorry: promotion freeze to force them out) of so many officers and ratings.

    The government needs to lay its cards on the table and treat the RN personnel as adults.
     
  18. Matelot - ironically your link does bring up a further link to the Officers Retention Flyer!

    I agree with the sentiment that this is all rather underhand - if we don't need these people then lets make them redundant. The Telegraph suggests that some may consider an Industrial Tribunal for constructive dismissal. Interesting.

    The main snag with this is that those whom the RN is trying to get rid of won't go because of the pension trap, boarding school allowance, etc They will see out their time demotivated, passed-over and bitter whilst maxing out on AT. Those without an appointment to go to and no redundancy will, of course, find themselves on gardening leave!

    The ones who will jump are the ambitious youngsters who need to be pulled through to fill the black-holes which are currently causing such a concern on the manpower plot, particularly amongst Engineer Officers.
     
  19. As long as recruitment goes on because otherwise we will have a rerun of the c*ckup in the ninties when people were made redundant while recruitment was heavily restricted, and it caused problems for years.
     
  20. Still is causing problems, the black whole at LH level is still there, my last ship I only had 2 of the 9 LOMs that should have been in my squad at some times.

    I know they'll never go for redundancy but if they where to offer early retirement and let me go 5 years early with a full 22 year pension I'd be off like a flash
     

Share This Page