BitteEinBit

Not sure if that was a response to my post, but I didn't make any assumptions at all. I asked a question about action vs no action. But lets say we let the bearded snake eaters go in and the air strikers were allowed to do their thing, and left 100,000 troops at home, would there be any less terrorists or hate for the US for taking action around the globe? What I got from the original author was that we have more terrorists and are hated more because we took action. I'm just curious if anyone thinks things would be better if we took no action...maybe we could just draw a red line in the sand and tell those guys not to do it again.

This question is more thought provoking as opposed to me trying to get you to give me a "what could have been" answer...but, what do you think the world would be like had we done nothing in response to the attacks on 9-11?? Are you suggesting we should not have gone into Afghanistan at all since the end result has been more terrorists? What would your response have been if you were POTUS on 9-11? I honestly wonder what the current POTUS's response would have been. Inaction may be just as bad. But we'll never know, we've passed that fork in the road already. Edit: I cannot type to save my life

Holy sh*t, did I read that right? 40 apps from the C-130 side at Dyess? I wonder how many were pilots. I can't imagine many of those bubbas getting approved, but AFPC has proved logic wrong many times before... I'm happy for the bubbas who got the VSP. Take advantage of the great opportunities on the outside, and deal with the AF BS part time. I don't think the AF really loses here if even half of those VSP bubbas finish in the reserves (STS). While life will probably suck for those who decided to stay in dealing with the temporary shortages, things will still move along in the AF even if it isn't pretty. I just have a suspicion that although lessons were learned observed here, AFPC will still f*ck up the next round of RIFs. Go ahead and start the thread now...it is going to happen eventually. We know...AFPC "couldn't have predicted this" "The force management process is complex, fluid, and dynamic." "You're the best!" "Service before Self" "Blah Blah Blah" Congrats and good luck to everyone! I'm drinking JD in your on-her...onner...honor!

Yeah, I say the same thing all the time. All those Master's Degrees out there and no one can figure this shit out? Money well spent for sure... (Yeah, I finally got an AAD line in there!)

Touche! Ok, you got me. You just had to ruin my argument by bringing hot chicks into the mix...my weakness! Hooters probably won't be failing any time soon. That is a good thing with Hooter girls though, as I get older, they stay the same age!! Now, if I could just convince US Airways to do the same with their aging talent pool, I may make the switch to the airlines. Looks like I'll just have to stick to the young Air Force Flight Nursing Corps instead....when is graduation again?!

This is probably the best solution I've seen yet. You would THINK that is how we would do it all along, but we don't. That is the reason you have overages of officers in certain career fields and not others. Hard to see when you just deal in overall beans instead of specific beans. No doubt these are (mostly) quality officers, but if you can't crossflow your officers to effectively "lead" as experts in other AFSCs, those overages do nothing for the organization other than make it more difficult for the AF to place those quality officers within those AFSCs. Meanwhile, you may have a rated officer (for example) who may not have stacked well against the COMM officer who was the 2-star's exec, but is still a quality expert in the flying world who is shown the door because he/she wasn't promoted. I still need experienced IPs to actually fly, but said COMM officer will not be able to fill the shoes of the rated guy. So, I guess I'll just spend extra money to replace the IP...yes, it can be done, but it costs money and I may lose experience/knowledge in the process. That seems to be "just good enough" in today's Air Force. Wash, rinse, repeat. Its ok, we have unlimited funds. We all know not everyone can be promoted...but we also know that promoting an arbitrary number of officers (75-85% depending on the board) without regard to AFSC promotes a lot of quality officers, but not necessarily the right flavor of quality officer. They'll make good managers somewhere, but won't replace my quality IP who maybe isn't GO or exec material ( per current AF definition as listed in PBs post above). I don't care what your education background is...I want quality instructors producing quality pilots, so I value the experience in my squadron. Those aren't necessarily the phoenix touch and go IPs we seem put on pedestals. Name one successful company on the civilian side who let expertise go just because they aren't management material, and I'll show you a company getting ready to fail....

That's part of the problem....the boards shouldn't be trying to interpret what may or may not be bad on an OPR. I thought they didn't have time to think about why someone was an IP in one MWS and an FP in the next. Stick to what the OPR actually says instead of trying to interpret what the writer might be trying to say. There are many reasons why someone would be an IP in one MWS but an FP in another. One example comes from the old Little Rock days back in 2007 when the 41st was still transitioning to the J-model. It was squadron policy to be an FP until one deployment and then you couldn't upgrade to IP until you deployed once as an AC. If someone had shitty timing and just crossflowed from being an IP in another airframe to an FP in the J just prior to their promotion board and some numbnut O-6 tries to interpret why, they'd probably be screwed because the O-6 would get it wrong not knowing how the 41st did their upgrade training. Epic fail. Now fast forward to Ramstein in 2009 when they started transitioning to the J-model and upgraded everyone as soon as they had 50 hours of FP time (LR TR course time included). Same airframe, same crew position, same upgrade...different criteria. (no knocking the Ramstein bubbas, just trying to show perspective). Rock bottom line...non-rated O-6s (or anyone for that matter) have no business trying to interpret what aircrew progression (or perceived regression) really means. Chances are, they will get it wrong. If someone was an IP and is no longer an IP for performance reasons, their records SHOULD should show some kind of derogatory information...but we don't do that. Everyone gets a trophy in today's Air Force. So we leave it to some jacknut at a promotion board to ask questions about something that isn't even in an individual's records. Edit to add: Yeah, we aren't creating any more cockpits, we're fixing the pilot shortage without having to train any additional pilots. It is the numbers game. Oh, and by the way, we're still going to do more with less!

Yeah, TPS cover sheets...I knew they would come along eventually.

I might be able to understand parking spots at a busy work place....but spots at the commissary or BX where the person MIGHT go once a week is beyond ridiculous. Is anyone really that fucking lazy to walk the extra 50m from a parking spot in the back? I mean, didn't those guys make their rank based off their excellent PT scores anyway? It is about as funny as those front row parking spots at the gym people will sit and wait for instead of just walking the extra distance. YOU'RE GOING TO THE FUCKING GYM!!

Oh great...more OPR "code words" and people trying interpret the meaning. That is precisely what is wrong with the AF today. We get a bunch of O-6s on a board trying to decide what someone really meant by the phraseology they put in an OPR because apparently we don't put what we really mean in an OPR. If the guy is a dirtbag and his career should be ended, then just say so. What ends this guy's career won't be anything to do with what he did by talking to the media, but how poorly worded (intended or not) his OPR was written. I think with all the buffoonery going on with the AF today, the media issue won't hurt the guy...if anything, it will help him.

I'm confident enough to say that rated manning calculations were based on absolutely nothing. The Air Force just announced the force shaping of 25K people, implemented the process before ever deciding who they were going to cut, and then regrouped to decide who they were going to cut. Bassackwards is what those calculations are based on. It is safe to assume that the Air Force hasn't considered future planning, future manning or future anything with the rated force. They'll just wing it, recall if necessary, and throw money at the problem and as long as the beans look good (green) everything is ok. It worked before...it will work again. Ask Chang...he'll tell you.

PT test scores (as long as you pass) and OPRs don't seem to matter for 365 or other deployment opportunities either. Weird.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

There has to be more to it. Hard to believe someone randomly found an e-mail from 7 years ago and decided to investigate...but I've seen worse happen. On the other hand, I guess it is a new month and we needed another senior officer to fire. Wonder who it will be next month... Edit to add: He was relieved because the boss "lost confidence" in his leadership ability over something that happened 7 years ago?!? Really? I will put up my entire life savings and bet that at LEAST half of current senior officers have something in their past when they were young CGOs worth being fired over (punching the E-ticket, infidelity, continuing education contributions to hookers, etc.). I'll even double down and say that the firing commander has something in his past that went TDY and stayed TDY.

It makes sense to me....deny TERA and VSP to those who actually want to get out so that I can get an extra year or two out of them before they get out anyway and then turn around and kick out those who want to stay so I can get my numbers to look good NOW. I'll worry about the pilot shortage when it gets here in a few years. I'll throw some money at it and people will stay because like that old saying, throwing money at a problem 100% of the time works 70%...of the...or...70% of the time...it works....well either way, I'm going to just throw money at it because it works. Who the hell plans ahead for those kinds of things anyway!? We can always change the criteria to meet our objectives. All I care about is looking good NOW so I can guarantee myself my next promotion and job opportunity. A pilot shortage is only a pilot shortage if the numbers I produce say it is. All I have to do is change the numbers and BAM! No more pilot shortage. Look Boss...slides are green again! Now , give me my fucking star!

Ah yes, the "changing goal post" technique. Helping warriors meet their objectives since 2008.

I'd say there are about 157 separated Majors (some Lt Col now) who would say there is something worse than making a decision to get out and then having to wait...and that is: making the decision to stay and being told without notice that you have to get out in 6 months and not having any jobs lined up. I guess it is all about perspective. I do find it ironic that the AF is quick to kick people out when they want to stay, but hold on as tight as they can when people want to leave. Wouldn't it make sense to let the people go who you know want to leave anyway rather than cutting to the bare minimums and keeping the people who you still know want to leave anyway? Where is the logic? I really don't know if I should laugh or not...because it is very comical to say the least. The icing on the cake: The former SAPR Lt Col heading this process up. Someone please tell me that is a joke because I really want to laugh at that one.... I've summed this up to the Air Force spending most of the last 5-6 years focusing on "looking" good but not really "being" good at what we are supposed to do (I'm specifically talking about AFPC). When it comes time to perform, we fail miserably. But, I'll be my left nut those bubbas and bubbettes at AFPC "look" damn good fucking this up. I can just see the resumes now...minus the repeating negative outcomes of course.

...But Obama promised....

They don't appreciate GooneyGooGoo.....AUNT BUNNY!

They do...the only reason the 10,000 Russian troops haven't breached the Eastern border of Ukraine is because they aren't all CBT complete yet. But once they are....

Wait...what kind of "Dude" was that...was it an excited "Dude, you play too?!?" or a "Dude, want to play?" or a disappointed "Dude, did you really post that?"

She has me a little excited... I'm going to change my name to Noonan and see if she wants a sidekick.

We have priorities?

LOL. Dude, I must misunderstand what it is that AFPC does for a living. I must have it all wrong. Here is what I think they are supposed to do: Come up with manpower requirements/billets to meet NSS objectives. If there is an overage in some areas, target the cuts to manage those overages. If you have a shortage of say Intel Officers, you don't cut them. If you have an overage of Cops, you cut them. Seems simple right?!? Here is what they actually do: Identify both critical and non-critical overage and shortage AFSCs, cut evenly across the board. Scratch head and wonder why we still have overages and even more shortages. I can only imagine what goes on at those staff meetings. I almost feel like I'm watching an SNL skit.

Liquid, Thanks for the honest, straight-forward post. I expect to see this from the people running this FSP or at least admit that mistakes were made...but of course, nothing. Again, we've been doing these cuts annually since 2007...and we did the EXACT SAME THING in 2011 but on a smaller scale. I'm having a difficult time believing no one saw this coming. If they didn't see it, then we have the wrong people managing this force. It is embarrassing, so yes, people should be fired. BT