Dupe

There was also this guy: https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/bishop_safety_inspector_faa_sentenced_jail_payment_206569-1.html As a former AF dude, he milked other rated guys out of checkride fees at $300 a pop. Thankfully, nobody had to do a recheck.

Though not "the guy," I've heard good things about Action Multi in Groton, CT

There's two separate issues here: competition in the ISP market and net neutrality I agree, there isn't enough competition, even if most markets are served by two broadband providers. The public should rally for more competition (or increased regulation to balance the lack of competition... which I don't see happening). Here's where I have the issue: The internet is not like a utility. With power, you don't care which plant your power came from, and the plant generating your power doesn't care that a particular unit went to you. As a result, every kilowatt of power or every glass of water has the same value as every other kilowatt or glass. That's not true with data. With data, both the provider and the consumer care very much that particular packets are delivered to the right person. Additionally, the value of data can increase with rate. The power company doesn't charge me a higher rate if I try to see what the ambient temperature would be if I put my electric space heater into my meat freezer. The entire infrastructure is built and maintained by commercial entities, but then the FCC wanted to say that they couldn't develop a pricing scheme that treated data (which all has different values) differently. It's as if the FAA were to say "United... you can't have classes on your aircraft. It's all coach. Even if some of your customers want first class and you invested in your own infrastructure...still, coach only." Everyone seems ok with the concept with the cost difference between Next Day Air, Priority, and Third Class mail, but then some get up in arms over the same concept applied to the internet. This is why Net Neutrality 1.0 was shot down... it didn't even make sense when compared to other common carriage markets. Yes, not all firms will be able to or desire to pay for faster service... and that's ok. Rising barriers to entry is a hallmark of every maturing industry. Not too many people are complaining that market forces would be against any proposed automobile manufacturing or airline start-up. The internet just isn't that different from the old economy in this respect. Part of this is that companies like Google and Amazon need to grow up. They've been able to print money by creating entire markets. Now, they're facing off against some firms who are better in the legal/regulatory world.

My spit-ball guess is that the number of applicants vs the number of bodies to be cut is way more. On the 11M side, we had a bunch of folks sitting in an airframe that's going away... thus making cutting with an axe much easier.

I've got some issues with the data... here's a different version from the same source To me, most metropolitan markets seem like there are at least two choices (as well as North Dakota...what's up with that? Is that just a function of needing competitive ISPs to support the energy industry there, or did the state do something unique?). In most markets, there's a cable provider and a telco: both likely offer broadband. This isn't to say the service that Americans receive is great...it's clearly not. My view is that allowing advanced pricing strategies to content providers will put companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix in a position to negotiate for defined bandwidth/speed to consumers. I believe US broadband service will improve because the content providers will have some incredible negotiating power. As an example, which ISP would dare not carry Amazon as a result of an unsuccessful negotiation? It's one thing to not carry Lifetime on cable... quite another to not carry Google. Individual customers aren't in a position to compel the ISPs for upgrades, and I don't think many people are in favor of government-regulated service levels from ISPs. The ISPs likely don't see it, but I think the end of Net Neutrality will be the end of the market power of ISPs... the content providers have a vested interest in cheap/fast connections, and now they will be in the position to negotiate for it. Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner may be powerful companies. Amazon, Google, Apple, and Netflix are far more powerful as well as more nimble....and the ISPs just invited them into the ring!

This is issue about how one industry -the ISPs (who are decidedly not monopolies) charge another industry -the content providers (also not monopolies). Other than preventing collusion and ensuring monopolies don't become established, the government should stay the hell out of deals between businesses.

That all depends on how much you're willing to pay for porn... Seriously, I think I'm good with this. Like cable, the government didn't build the infrastructure or service, but they the regulated the service. It's like saying "everyone must use taxi cabs -limos, ride share vans, and Uber/Lyft are off the table" or "Airlines: you must only have coach seats." ISPs should be allowed to generate revenue by providing better services to customers who are willing to pay more.

Well, he'd be really pissed off if his troops were dying from enemy-generated CAS/interdiction.

Anything that can loiter above 20K can deliver effective (granted, not Hawg awesome level) CAS. I want to know how the A-10s that weren't in theater at Day 0 are going to get to staging bases with limited tanker assets. Also, what bases are they going to be based at? The ones near the front will likely be unusable, and the ones far away severely limit time on station. How are they going to survive in an environment where US air dominance is not a given. Look, the Air Force at large is trying to figure out how to establish and maintain air superiority against a near competitor who will likely not give us six months of planning time the way Saddam did. US air dominance has been a planning assumption for 50+ years... I'm worried that assumption may not be valid any longer. Given both the budget and the threat, I don't see continued investment in a platform that requires air superiority as a good idea. We need platforms that can kick down the door, and I view going from awesome to just effective CAS as the price we have to pay due to budget limitations.

The Sandy conversation is the elephant in the room: I don't see how a CSAR package is survivable in a modern threat environment. CSAR-X will never happen, and I see nonconventional assisted recovery becoming the primary means of personnel recovery in a high-threat environment. What good is your RESCORT if the Jolly can't make it? On the other side, low intensity CAS is becoming a crowded market. These days, if it flies, it can probably have a multi-mode munition attached to it or built in to it. Most of these options are cheaper and can be employed faster than getting Hawg Flight on scene. This is the A-10's problem: it's increasingly unsurvivable on the high end of the air combat spectrum and there are a plethora of options at the low end. The Hawg is getting niche.

Same was true for '03ers... and probably a few '8X years when we did RIFs in the early-mid '90s.

My understanding is that this is the central idea and the key learning point from a few years ago: only a career-specific board could make career-specific cuts intelligently. Why bother laying out a matrix by year group and AFSC if we're then going to hack with an axe? Of course, this is applying logic to an AFPC process.... ...I'll dig

Which is a somewhat silly ban because RRFs are an AFSC-specifc board vice a promotion board (inclusive of all AFSCs). Sucks you had to do that... senior B-52/B-2 dudes probably can speak Bone (STS).

This is true for a labor market. In a knowledge market, decidedly not the case. Akamai or Amazon are still very much keeping the network engineers and cyber security experts who don't want to move up to management. It seems like the AF regards aviators as somewhere in the middle (i.e. further experience is valuable, but becoming a deep career-long expert is not).

Did the lifetime ban come and go? I remember a lifetime ban similar to the current 1-year limit for programs > $10M, but that was a few years ago.

Our system could work much better if the OPR matched what we're looking for. The board wants strats for the top 20% and percentiles for everyone else? Fine, put that on the form. So breadth, depth, primary job performance, deployments, and leadership are all valued traits: make blocks on the form. We want to ensure a senior rater gives only one #1 strat? Seems like a job for a computer. In a service that values data and numbers, I'm constantly shocked that there are no analytics applied to our OPRs. We spend an insane amount of time training writers, reviewing OPRs, holding MLRs, and fueling the overhead to keep it all going. The AF as an organization has developed a whole separate process (review cycle & MLR) to deal with the failings of the first process. On top of that, if you're a member in the top 20% down to the top 70% (I.e...going to get promoted but not a school nod), the time spent crafting your OPR was largely wasted. We need a system enables extra focus at the cut-lines. Sure, our system works. It could work much better if the tool (the OPR) were designed to specifically input the data boards cared about. Instead, we're using a canvas and paint brush to draw architectural drawings. I'm surprised more senior leaders aren't asking "why?" and "What do other services and Fortune 500 companies do?" It seems the "Our system works" line has been pounded in from SOS and beyond to the point where senior leaders are conditioned to not question the process. It's funny: I can tell where I stand percentile-wise for my PFT over time and across the AF, but I can't do the same with my OPR. Which is more important there? There are better systems out there... there really are. Senior leaders would do well to ask "What data do we want from this process and how can that data be most efficiently be delivered?" Somebody... please end the madness.

Other services stratify everyone. The problem is that our idea of "truth" has become departed from reality. If you were to hand an OPR to anyone outside the AF where the push line read "A strong officer. Consider for IDE in-res and place in ADO position," they might actually believe the rated individual was shit hot... vice someone in the top 70%. The system needs actual honesty. Not Air Force honesty. There's sadly a difference.

In theory, firms can get thrown out of competitions. In practice, competing firms will tattle-tell and protest. Seriously, the "getting the job at the company you awarded a large-scale contract to" trick just isn't done anymore.

All this argument proves is how really f-ed up our system is. Senior leaders: I know you're reading. Why can't we just have an honest system? One that tells folks where their performance really is and offers the member a chance to change that positioning (for better or worse).

The rules have changed a bunch since the Druyan/tanker-lease fiasco... There used to be a 1-year cooling off period if you are a decision-maker on an effort this large. Now, it's a life-time ban. I put this one squarely on the AF, who likely wanted an easy way to ULA win. Switch-overs and retraining the new contractor is always a pain in the ass. Writing a sole-source justification is easier than doing a source select, and the PM likely didn't see a valid other competitor.

I disagree... Make the competition full & open, then throw out SpaceX on performance if they're not on the game. Don't just sole-source the whole thing from the start.

"Never tear" are the words you want to use if you go through DAPS (Defense Automated Print Service) ...For being "automated," you'll still have to spend way too much time manually checking over every bit.

Recent gem in my organization: If you got accepted for TERA, you still have to submit a 3849 for developmental education....

I think it will go the other way: the airlines will provide this training. The new ATP requirements just aren't that different from what's already required for a type rating and the pilot new-hire process at every airline. Hopefully, in two years, guys won't be spending money or burning their GI Bill to get an ATP before punching. Let's be real: a weekend in a Seminole will probably not bring anyone to a professional pilot level of capability if they weren't there already.

I'm in a horrible staff job right now in basically the AF NIPR Program Office. The AF is trying to set up a stand-alone network specifically for getting EFBs loaded with data in a way that doesn't force the ops units to pay for ComCast or similar providers. Also, there's tremendous conflict within the AF and DoD right now: nobody can figure out the right way to leverage commercial cloud storage. DISA wants to pretend that firms like Amazon aren't really attractive options for data that isn't sensitive or for data that has been double or triple encrypted. Separately, our system of funding base infrastructure (i.e...buildings, power and HVAC) separately from IT has caused the Comm community to not consolidate in the way that the outside world has. Bros....you'd be shocked if you walked in to companies like Google or Akamai. Nobody has a desktop at a firm of more than 100 people... and that change happened five years ago in the outside world. Lesson: don't go to a staff or broadening job. Just keep flying.