ARIs 'R' Us Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 You really think the bottom 10% were the ones who took VSP? Good God you're an idiot... That's not what he said. He said we cut 2% of the bottom 10% because the other 8% came from VSPrs. I'm not good at math though so I may be wrong... We all know that the 8% came mostly from the top 50, or higher. Lucky bastards and bastardettes.
JarheadBoom Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. NO, we most certainly are not. Maybe in the hallowed halls of the Pentagon the AF is envied, but definitely not "down in the trenches" by anyone who is capable of independent thought.
Dupe Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. When compared to other broken bureaucracies, ours is the least dysfunctional! 2
Lawman Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) When compared to other broken bureaucracies, ours is the least dysfunctional! Smartest kid in special Ed..... What are we doing as a military when that is the brass ring we are aiming for. Edited February 18, 2015 by Lawman
BONE WSO Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. This statement makes me very angry. We did not cut the bottom 2%. For example, in the B-1, one of the guys that got RIFed was an instructor/evaluator WSO with a Masters Degree, ACSC complete, and about 5 deployments. He was also the Chief WSO in OGV and had normal progression throughout his career. He is known as one of the sharpest guys in the community. Please explain how that is considered "the bottom 2%"! Nobody is going to "have pride" in A1 leadership. To say that you made "remarkable strides" is spin and an absolute joke. What strides? Please tell us! 1
DirkDiggler Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 All the Marine and Army officers here at the wayward school by the river who already have their assignments (in some cases have had them for months) really seem to be envious of the dozens of AF officers who are still completely in the dark as to where they're going in 4 months.
HossHarris Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. You've gone full retard. 3
pawnman Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 This statement makes me very angry. We did not cut the bottom 2%. For example, in the B-1, one of the guys that got RIFed was an instructor/evaluator WSO with a Masters Degree, ACSC complete, and about 5 deployments. He was also the Chief WSO in OGV and had normal progression throughout his career. He is known as one of the sharpest guys in the community. Please explain how that is considered "the bottom 2%"! Nobody is going to "have pride" in A1 leadership. To say that you made "remarkable strides" is spin and an absolute joke. What strides? Please tell us! Don't forget...we cut a current, qualified evaluator WSO, completely qualified in the newest block of the B-1 (one of like 8 dudes dual-qualified)...and in the mean time, 12B manning was so bad we brought back a guy who has been out of the aircraft for 8 years, non-instructor, as a LtCol, to go back through the B-course. Good dude, sure...but is that really a great trade? What's the ROI on a guy who could train dozens of new guys on the newest evolution of the jet versus a guy who isn't a qualified instructor and will be lucky to fly twice a month, when the squadron isn't trying to train the new guys for the next deployment?
General Chang Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Don't forget...we cut a current, qualified evaluator WSO, completely qualified in the newest block of the B-1 (one of like 8 dudes dual-qualified)...and in the mean time, 12B manning was so bad we brought back a guy who has been out of the aircraft for 8 years, non-instructor, as a LtCol, to go back through the B-course. Good dude, sure...but is that really a great trade? What's the ROI on a guy who could train dozens of new guys on the newest evolution of the jet versus a guy who isn't a qualified instructor and will be lucky to fly twice a month, when the squadron isn't trying to train the new guys for the next deployment? No system is going to nail the perfect solution, and despite the botched information flow from A1 in 2014...I'd say we hit a homerun on the non-voluntary reductions. 1
Bobby Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 No system is going to nail the perfect solution, and despite the botched information flow from A1 in 2014...I'd say we hit a homerun on the non-voluntary reductions. Sounds familiar..."it would be unrealistic to expect perfection"....where have we heard that recently? 1
Fuzz Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 No system is going to nail the perfect solution, and despite the botched information flow from A1 in 2014...I'd say we hit a homerun on the non-voluntary reductions. Yeah, your whole "got rid of the bottom 10%" wasn't the case at McChord. We lost about 20 guys, of those I would say 1-2 might have fallen in that category and that's stretching it. The rest were 2nd and 3rd assignment ops to ops IP/EPs, former FTU IPs and lead airdrop pilots, more like the top 10% of the community.
Azimuth Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Yeah, your whole "got rid of the bottom 10%" wasn't the case at McChord. We lost about 20 guys, of those I would say 1-2 might have fallen in that category and that's stretching it. The rest were 2nd and 3rd assignment ops to ops IP/EPs, former FTU IPs and lead airdrop pilots, more like the top 10% of the community. The C-17 FTU lost about 18+ IP's during this past round of VSP's, including a lot of their lead airdroppers. Those guys/girls were 2-3 assignment folks who were definitely not in the bottom 10%. Edited February 18, 2015 by Azimuth 1
Dupe Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Yeah, your whole "got rid of the bottom 10%" wasn't the case at McChord. We lost about 20 guys, of those I would say 1-2 might have fallen in that category and that's stretching it. The rest were 2nd and 3rd assignment ops to ops IP/EPs, former FTU IPs and lead airdrop pilots, more like the top 10% of the community. Did these guys go to ANG / AFRES? In a way, I'd rather have these fine Americans producing airlift sorties for more than 20 years in a scalable and flexible way. The AF's loss is the AF's gain. My god, that's fucked up. I hope it worked out for them both in family life and professionally. Edited February 18, 2015 by Dupe
nrodgsxr Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Gates hates the AF? https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CzpfsKzmIigJ:www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/March%25202014/0314gates.aspx+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Fuzz Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Did these guys go to ANG / AFRES? In a way, I'd rather have these fine Americans producing airlift sorties for more than 20 years in a scalable and flexible way. The AF's loss is the AF's gain. My god, that's fucked up. I hope it worked out for them both in family life and professionally. Most attempted too, some were successful, the rest last I heard were still rushing units along with the rest of the masses that stampeded for the door. Ironically several crossed over to other airframes (mainly tankers), so sure they take their airmanship skills with them but as for passing down theirs years of MWS specifc airlift/airdrop experience well not so much. Most guys were beyond happy (hear that Chang, you're top 10% were looking for a way out) to take large paycheck and head for the a-word, RES/ANG or anything that wasn't the active duty. Several were even brand new majors. Chang keep believing your programs worked, and as a whole yes they cut the numbers down to what was required by Congress. However, it did not, cut the specific people you were hoping to cut, you got some of them but lost way more of your top preformers (see Azimuths comment about the FTU). We'll not even rehack the abortion that was the process itself. But keep up your "good work", the one bright spot is that if I ever become too incompetent to command an aircrew and jet, I'll still be able to get a job at AFPC, and even be told I'm doing a good job no matter how much I underperform.
pcola Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 No system is going to nail the perfect solution, and despite the botched information flow from A1 in 2014...I'd say we hit a homerun on the non-voluntary reductions. So, your plan was to make the AF suck soooo bad, that when the time comes to give dudes the opportunity to voluntarily separate, they jump like rats from a sinking ship? Bravo… well done, sir. And BTW, when you say things like "we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system," you are broadcasting your unbelievably low SA and making your entire A1 community look like a bunch of clueless jackasses. If you had a clue, you'd realize that the last rounds of cuts took already stressed communities to the brink, and another round conducted like the last one will take some communities beyond dangerously low experience levels. And I'm talking real-world, no-shit danger, not some yellow/red slide bubbles, but cockpits manned by inexperienced young bucks that are gonna get somebody killed type of danger.
SurelySerious Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Gates hates the AF? https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CzpfsKzmIigJ:www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/March%25202014/0314gates.aspx+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Bingo. If not, he definitely hated Creech.
Ram Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Gates hates the AF? https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CzpfsKzmIigJ:www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/March%25202014/0314gates.aspx+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Well, the feeling is mutual, at least in my little corner of the 11F community.
08Dawg Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money.. Because throwing money at people always solves your problems... 1
raimius Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. First, saying we do something terribly, but better than the other guy does not win you many points. Second, we don't know if we cut the bottom, top, or middle. We don't know how to measure this! Having the skills to write a strong "C" on your OPR is a poor indicator of talent and skill in both your primary AFSC and leadership abilities. On the E side, everybody is a winner as well. It's amazing that all our children are above average! Until we figure out how to measure our talent pool, we won't have more than a hazy idea of who we want to keep and who should go. Third, what do you consider "extreme stress on the system?" Is that too few people to fill nominal billets, too few people to operate normally, or too few to win the war? From the ground level, I sometimes wonder. Fourth, throwing money at people won't retain your best talent. Some may be great, but bonuses tend to attract those who either already want/plan to stay or those who don't see better options. Heck, I barely read anything on personnel/talent management and I realize this! More money is nice and all, but pay is not the top reason most people decide to stay or leave. Finally, I have GREAT pride in parts of the Air Force. Those parts would be the airmen doing their jobs with care and precision, getting the mission done regardless of the enemy or other obstacles. The personnel system looks more detached, disconnected, and arbitrary just about every time I read about it. Why should I take pride in a system that is so inefficient and reactionary? If that sounded like a bit of a rant, you are right. I know I see things at the micro level, but I'm not an idiot, nor are the people I work with. Your cheery picture does not fit the reality that they and I are experiencing.
SurelySerious Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) . Because throwing money at people always solves your problems...It must, because that's how we're also fixing the missile career field. Clearly we wouldn't do it if it was flawed. Money doesn't make up for years straight of shift work with no draw down in tempo. Edited February 18, 2015 by SurelySerious
TacAirCoug Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. Jesus, Chang. You're like my dog that keeps shitting on the kitchen floor and then looks at me like he has no idea why I'm so pissed. Again. The Guard thanks you for cutting all those "underperformers." Many of them are finding homes where their hard work is actually valued.
Duck Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Chang, do you think there will be opportunities for more pilots to get out early this year or next? Maybe transition to the guard?
MooseAg03 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. One of those 'stressed' career fields was just on the list of overages and it took exactly 1 month after the 2nd round of VSPers separated before the AF started screaming about critical manning for RPA pilots. If the future looks so bleak, why did they just pay a bunch of qualified pilots to separate? I know Creech lost 2 dozen current RPA guys and tons of 11Rs were paid to leave that could have been cross flowed. The recent Creech generalapalooza gave them a taste of what will be coming over the next 5-7 years. Dangling extra flight pay will not solve the problem, as 11X guys are not eligible for that and most will not sign the ACIP contract and give up their ability to walk. Dudes are sick of spending 1200 hrs a year locked in a box along with dealing with AF active duty BS. The foot voting started last year, in case you missed it, and it will continue. Edited February 18, 2015 by MooseAg03
General Chang Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Chang, do you think there will be opportunities for more pilots to get out early this year or next? Maybe transition to the guard? Things are constantly changing, but as of right now there are no plans to bring back opportunities like last year. We are just about right-sized (with a few minor balancing issues), and we anticipate sequestration will go away. If it doesn't go away...you will likely see more "opportunities," and quickly.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now