BitteEinBit

They will know who wants to get out and then they will RIF you for less money. Same with 15-year TERA....they'll deny you the 15 year retirement and VSP after you show your cards, and then RIF you for less money. It is all about cost savings... I'm being only half serious here...but I'll bet my other nut that it will happen to SOMEONE during this drawdown. I really like how they used the "Christmas" theme for the slideshow....Christmas Trees, Stars, and Snowflakes. Nice touch. "Merry Christmas everyone....you're fu*king fired!"

That is part of his "code" within the video...brilliant! I can totally decode OPRs/PRFs now too... I'm still trying to grasp this concept that a "much smaller force" is going to be better for our ability to project power. He must be talking about the overhead personnel like finance, personnel, services, etc. I don't know how anyone who served in any operational capacity can argue that we had way too many people deploying to support these operations over the past 12 years...but I am willing to listen to anyone who can argue that. I understand these wars are ending and the ops tempo should decrease (in theory), but we are already the smallest we've ever been and I can remember a time after a different war when we had a big drawdown and thought we could do more with less because the "ops tempo" was supposed to decrease. Times were not good back then. I guess we'll find out in 2023. Unless I get RIFd, hopefully I'll be retired making 1% less per year by then so I won't have to re-live those days.

Yeah, but he doesn't call it a baseball....

FIFY

...Unless it was a giant labia minora...that might be inappropriate.

But I'll bet they'll still RIF pilots....in fact they'll probably RIF pilots that they denied for VSP I'll put money on that one. According to some people, we do have a glut of 11Ms among us. I think this next round of cuts will be ugly...

Oh you can be eligible to apply, but you will be DENIED! Seems like I remember this happening sometime before...but like most Force Management Managers at AFPC, my memory doesn't serve me very well. Besides, we've had a bunch of PCSs out of AFPC over the past few years...surely no one there now remembers the last VSP fiasco. Where is that Michael Jackson popcorn gif....this is going to be good!

Wait, are you being serious?? Because I don't see that thread anymore....shit is getting real when AF "leadership" can make you clean house on a private Interweb forum. Remember, they're always watching!

If anyone thinks "retirement benefits" are off the table, I want some of what you're smoking. Sure, I know the administration said that any changes wouldn't affect currently serving members of the military, but this is the same administration that said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"...which is true, you can keep your doctor...you'll just pay more for insurance for that same doctor. I'm thinking there is more to the quote after "changes won't affect currently serving members..." Just listen to the verbiage when this administration makes promises to you. We'll probably still have a retirement, but like the deal with the doctors and insurance, it isn't going to be exactly what you're expecting. For those currently in the service who would theoretically be "grandfathered," at a minimum I would expect a change in either how they calculate retirement pay like nixing high-three and making it a high-five with a kick in the nuts, or change WHEN you actually start collecting (age 50+). Either way, we're going to get less than what we expected. Count on it....

Sorry, I know we're all busy and stuff, but if a PRF is ever being sent up blank, that is a foul and an absolute failure in leadership. Doesn't surprise me at all that some CCs are too lazy to write something for their people. Yes, I know, a BTZ P will probably not make the cut, but inputs from that PRF can still be used on subsequent PRFs. If someone is APZ and has a blank PRF sent up that is an even bigger foul, because you're essentially writing off any chances of that officer ever being considered for promotion. I don't care how many APZ PRFs have been written on that guy, unless he is just a complete worthless bag-o-donuts, they should be considered for promotion. Yes, I've seen 5 times passed over Capts make Major (two of them, but still)....but that wouldn't have happened had their PRFs gone up blank. I'd rather a spineless CC just use "code" in a PRF rather than a blank one all together. I know it is common practice at many wings....I still consider it a fail.

Yeah, but I get this eerie feeling that this is still Schwartz's Air Force...its going to take a while to wash that stink off... Not surprised on the "Chiefed by e-mail" strateegerie. We've been doing virtual commanders calls for a while now. Virtual leadership...it is the future.

All these "tools" are useless unless "leadership" (in some cases tools themselves) actually follow them. Story time: Had an instance deployed where a tac airlift Bravo crew showed clearly fatigued for a mission in OIF because of the switch from days to nights on the flying schedule. Bravo crews were rarely used at the time, so sitting Bravo was like a day off, and generally AMD never launched them...regardless, for some reason the crew wasn't well rested. They all signed in maxing out the ORM for fatigue so it required OG or WG/CC approval. They were all still willing to fly, they just wanted to make it known that they were tired. OG said go. DO didn't want the crew to fly because they physically looked exhausted and this happened to be a high priority mission with a max duty day so, the DO said "nope ya'll aint going. " In other words, he exercised some leadership and judgment knowing that the crew had minimal sleep the night before for whatever reason. Information the OG/CC didn't care to ask about before just saying "go" Anyway, DO calls AMD to recommend canceling the first line of the day (normally scheduled water pallet shuttle) to cover for the Bravo crew, which is exactly what AMD did. Word gets back to the OG and the DO got scolded, the original crew nearly got sent home, and...that's right...the ORM got changed so that you could max out fatigue on ORM and still be legal to go without OG or WG/CC approval. Basically the "leadership" didn't want to have to make a decision on a high priority mission that might make them look bad if it goes badly. That was the moment I realized we have been promoting the wrong people. No one with any authority wants to make decisions anymore...it might make them look bad. They pass it to the lowest level so they can hang them when things don't go well. ORM shouldn't be used to try to get the lowest possible score so decisions can be made at the lowest level, but rather the highest potential score so you can identify ALL the risk and mitigate them if possible. If it requires senior leadership approval, then that should be your red flag. Yet, we pass off high-risk decision making to the lowest level relying on a pseudo 'experience' levels that may only exist on paper. Problem is we are running out of leadership above and experience at the execution level. Its ok though...we'll just keep blaming those at the lowest levels and the cycle will keep repeating itself...and we'll keep asking why and paying for more studies when the "why" is in our "leadership" or lack thereof. Another J. Daniels rant...ya'll are doing a great job! Keep it up...blah blah blah. Exactly right pcola, the problem is "leadership" above still wants their fingers in the chili on this, but want to only blame the crew when shit goes badly. Sometimes there just isn't enough experience on a crew to make a well informed decision to call out TACC like you mention above. Some of our youngest go getters are just trying to stay looking good for "the man" so those school slots are still attainable. What do you think really happens to the guys to alter the commander's priority 1 mission because they didn't feel safe completing it as fragged?

*** SPOILER ALERT *** DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS READ THIS...the following message is CLASSIFIED "NO KIDS" So...someone is getting butt hurt because we add a little realism (fighter escorts...they happen all the time) to probably the biggest marketing scams on the planet (Santa Claus on Christmas)? WE are ruining Christmas by adding a military theme to the "Santa Tracking Tradition" Really? Do they know who is NORAD is and what do they do? (que Arnold Schwarzenegger accent). Fuck liberals. I guess I've learned two disappointing things today. 1) Military does not run NORAD 2) There is no Santa Claus ** Note: This message was brought to you by Mr Daniels Tennesee Honey Whisky! I guess I'm late to the party and just tried that shit! And just in case any kids read through this and realized there is no Santa..um...don't believe everything you read kid. There is a Santa....aaaand if you don't get your mom to show me her boobs, Santa will not bring you ANYTHING for Christmas this year...

Of course we'll still have an Air Force. We'd have an Air Force if it was a 0% take rate and a hiring free-for-all. What we should be considering is how effective and efficient will our Air Force be if we keep having low bonus take rates and a hiring boom. We should be considering addressing what is causing the low take rates and how we plan to manage aircrew shortages many people in personnel management positions still refuse to acknowledge. I know you're just trying to jokingly jab at those who are seemingly crying wolf on this issue, but there are actually people in management positions who would rather this organization fail than to admit that personnel management mistakes have been made and that we do have a real potential problem in the making...they just refuse to see it coming (standard). It is the "nothing-to-see-here-manipulate-the-stats-so-our-problem-is-masked" crowd that we need to worry about. Being an effective fighting force is more than just having enough bodies and looking good. We probably meet our end-strength numbers (after manipulation of course), but are we really that good or do we just look good on paper? I do know one guy at the top who has already acknowledged this problem...and he isn't laughing right now. Buy hey, that's just me crying wolf again...we've never really seen anything like this in the history of the AF...after all, we haven't stopped being an Air Force since 1947...why should we worry now?

...so DTS, vMPF, org manning, and chow halls are important to you. Got it. Everyone has their own definition of what is wrong with the AF. I'll be honest, I don't hear a lot about people bitching about chow halls, but if that is important to you, I'll listen to you bitch about it without ragging your for it. If there are dudes out there who want to bitch about wasteful spending on worthless Master's degrees and PT tests I'll listen to that too because when you can change the small shit that bothers people, you can let them focus on the important shit that gets the mission done. What I do know is that you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but its ok, we'll survive. But if I can make 30% happy by addressing and fixing what some might consider petty issues and get a return of more productivity, then I'm happy with that. KH, I agree with you about the small shit this CSAF seems to be unsuccessful in changing. I would say the problem is more because of the bigger fish he's currently frying but a lot has to do with the large cancer of leaders managers we keep promoting to upper middle management that refuse to ease the queep we keep bitching about. We already knew the queep culture we have molded since 2008ish would be hard to fix...but I have a feeling the attempt to fix it is there from the top, it's just that the cancer is just preventing it from getting to our level. I guess the bottom line is that I can't really think of much that has improved for the Air Force outside of my organization...and that is sad.

LOL. THIS^ Who the fu*ck is running this circus? The Army can't be serious about preventing sexual assault or sexism when they are launching an entire PR campaign based on a woman's "looks." Why are they looking for "average looking" women when they can just look for the "average infantry chick" and put her on a poster...who gives a f*ck what she looks like if she can do the job. This just reemphasizes how the military just cares more about image rather than how good someone really is at their job. If anything, they just made it worse for hot chicks in the military who really are good at their jobs. Unless they look average, they couldn't have possibly made it to the top without "chowing some hog". We'll do well in the next war...all of the Air Force posters have dudes with 32 inch waists....yeah, we're that good!

Winner! Of course he was acquitted, he wasn't a fighter pilot....and we all know only fighter pilots who sing songs that degrade women are the only ones who do this kind of sh*t.

Great message from a great warrior. It makes sense to me because I think that way regarding mission and priorities, but I wonder if it makes sense to those people I see avoiding retreat while they race to the door/gate at 1625 every day, or the ones who avoid that drop down mission over the weekend that just came from Current Ops because they had a quiet weekend planned with their significant other. I like the idea of warrior ethos, but I think its true meaning is being lost these days with the wars dying down. It just becomes a "punchline" as Col Nathan Jessup would say, in "Warrior Day" speeches. As we float further down that path where camaraderie and bromanship are slowly being taken out of our workplace and we become more corporate-like, it will be hard to expect any kind of "warrior ethos" when all the real warriors are gone/retired and we have to talk about how things used to be in a "History Friday" thread. Yeah, I remember sometime back in 2011 or 2012 when bromanship and camaraderie existed on a Friday night at the squadron bar or those clubs we used to have on base. Those were the days....

This. National sales tax (in lieu of income tax) sounds great if you make the assumption that everyone will continue to buy goods and services at the rates they currently do with an income tax. All it would mean is people buy less stuff because in their heads, they are paying more for it (making the assumption that companies won't lower the base price of goods and services to keep purchasing power the same with the new tax). Then comes the ripple effect, less people buying less stuff means less growth, which means less jobs, which means less money in the economy to tax on less stuff being bought. In the end, you're essentially tying your federal revenue sources to a slowing economy. That means on the government goods and service side of the equation, you have less federal revenue from consumer spending which means less money to employ government workers (military for example), which means less government services which means less defense, which means less defense spending, which means less jobs, which means less money in the economy, which means less revenue. We all felt the pain during the "shutdown" and people were pissed about cut services. Can you imagine tying those goods and services to a slowing economy because people aren't buying shit? Income generally doesn't fluctuate as much as consumer spending although I would say there is a correlation between the two. Taxing something more stable like income at a flat rate will bring in a more steady revenue as long as you close the loopholes so people can't skirt the system. Taxing goods and services that people may or may not buy depending on the season just seems less predictable...especially If we exempt food, clothing, transportation. Which source do you think offers the most stability? What if people get serious about saving money and start saving more than they spend? Would the government then discourage saving or investing to keep that money in the system? If that money is just 'put away' instead of being pumped into the economy it is never taxed like it would be as general income. National sales tax sounds like a good idea until you consider the second, third and fourth order effects of tying revenue solely to consumer spending....just something to think about.

I know dude, I won't win this one. I'm not mad about it, I just ask the question because I know there is no reasonable answer that can be given without DoD speaking out of two sides of its mouth. I think it will be an epic failure, we'll stereotype the GLBT community and someone (group) will get offended...and DoD will act like they never saw it coming. Hell, I think I'm one of the only ones not stereotyping the GLBT community because I don't think there is anything different about them from anyone else, other than what I'm not supposed to talk about. Ok, I'll stop...

I've actually been waiting for someone to say it just like that. Please explain to me what a GLBT lifestyle is all about without mentioning sex (the act or even gender). What is this "Lifestyle" we are recognizing and can we recognize it without stereotyping a group of people? Does one have to conform to said "lifestyle" in order to be gay, lesbian, bi, or transsexual? I'm curious about the verbiage WRT the "lifestyle"...all this time I'm being told homosexuals are no different than you and I...but now there seems to be a lifestyle out there that we are supposed to be recognizing? Is there something special that makes them different that I don't know about? Still, no one can explain to me what we are recognizing with "Pride" month...probably because everyone knows it is wrong direction given the current SAPR climate. What exactly defines the GLBT culture? Liquid, I'm not calling you out on this personally, you've already made it clear that you do not support "Pride" month. I ask the question (again) because now someone is saying we are recognizing a "lifestyle." I was unaware of any special "lifestyle" a gay person lives that is significantly different than my lifestyle...with the exception of the sexual act which I'm not allowed to mention. So, excluding the sexual preference or nature of what makes a homosexual a homosexual, what is this lifestyle we speak of?

I can only imagine what pictures will be displayed and what will be served during "Pride Month." Yeah, I went there since someone high above obviously thinks it is a great idea to promote diversity, culture and awareness in our services. Can't wait to see how it gets "promoted"....

I appreciate what you're saying and trying to do here, but the type of leadership I'd like to see in today's Air Force is not allowed...we might offend someone. Honest feedback? Nope...we'll just keep letting people believe they can do no wrong...so no one strives to be the best anymore. We just want to look good enough not to get kicked out. If I were allowed to "lead" the way I want to lead, we'd have a lot more people focused on their part of the mission and less on self-serving ambitions. I wouldn't reward self servitude the way the AF does it today. I don't think you have to worry much about the threats...I think you'll see more action in the coming years, unfortunately. If you won't allow for the kind of dynamic leadership that many of us expect, then you'll have to be willing to deal with the new batch of Generation ME bubbas who lack the discipline to do what is right, and the leadership above to tell them (in a meaningful way) that they are doing it wrong. Remember, we don't want to offend anyone anymore, so all I can do it give you some CBTs and ask nicely that you not behave a certain way. Good luck. We're all counting on you....

Wait...this might actually help us! Next time I get in trouble for something, I'm just going to say "I was just testing people to see if they'd call me out on it...Good Job Sir/Ma'am! You got me! Now, I'm going to just keep these socks/Friday shirt/patch/younameit on to see how many other people "get" me"

That is part of my point...there is nothing relating to heritage or culture when talking about homosexuals or "Pride" month. Homosexuals come in all shapes, sizes, races, genders...they look just like you and I. They do their jobs just like you and I. Sure, you can stereotype, but you can also stereotype based on race too...but race isn't defined by the stereotype, but rather, the physical features define a race. Every race, gender, culture has stereotypes. You cannot tell a person is a homosexual just by looking at them. Realistically, you can't even tell they are homosexuals by the way they act. For example, the male airman at the finance office that was a subject of a few threads who allegedly acted a little feminine, and everyone assumed he was by the description. How he acts, talks, dresses does not make him a homosexual. His sexual preference is what makes him a homosexual or not. That is why I ask the serious question...what exactly are we recognizing with "Pride" month? It isn't a culture, there is no homosexual cuisine, there are no homosexual clothes. Tell me what we are recognizing? Done beating dead horse...