General Chang Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 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. Yes, the morale problem in some communities is understood and being watched. Not all RPA communities are having morale issues (see Global Hawk). Gen Carlisle is an awesome advocate for the RPA community and will continue to be. Also, UNTIL multiple years of research conclude the opposite of what we know to be true (throw enough money at a problem and you will fix it), we will continue to fix our issues with money. It's easy, it's proven, and it doesn't fail. And, as I've posted before...it's cheap! Bonuses and special pays are so inexpensive for the return that we get. We could spend quadruple on bonuses and special pays, and they would be cheap. (Enough) people's time can be bought for cheap to keep the meat machine going. I know that I rub some of you raw dealing in black-and-white, 1's-and-0's, but that's how sausage is made. If you get away from the facts and start making policy based on emotion, we'll end up so far off-track we won't be able to recover. That's the stark truth, ladies and gentlemen. Is A1 a meat factory? From a certain perspective, the answer must be yes, all day, every day. 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. I don't doubt you are pissed. Unfortunately, in this life, you are not "owed" anything, and I believe that to be the basis of your anger. Nobody thinks they are an underperformer; however, in the overage year groups and communities, we cut the bottom of the eligibles. Again, facts are facts. Don't get caught-up in the emotion of the right-sizing efforts or you will go insane.
Bergman Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Nobody thinks they are an underperformer; however, in the overage year groups and communities, we cut the bottom of the eligibles. Again, facts are facts. Don't get caught-up in the emotion of the right-sizing efforts or you will go insane. I would argue those points with you. I don't disagree that you (A1) are using "facts" to make these decisions. I would argue, as others have stated as well, that these "facts" (i.e. performance vs. peers, career progression, etc) are based on a fundamentally flawed system that favors box-checking ass kissers much more so than the people out there legitimately getting the job done. What process was used to determine who got the axe? OPRs? Squadron Commander rating? The bottom 10% on paper were cut, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the under-performers. The former-USAF folks I've seen flow to the airlines have been outstanding. My empirical evidence would suggest that they certainly are not the bottom 10% ya'll were aiming for. I sincerely believe the USAF is well into a pilot manning crisis and the guys running the show don't even realize it yet. As usual.
dvlax40 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Fire till you hire? Isnt that the air force way since the end of the cold war ? 1
Danny Noonin Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Also, UNTIL multiple years of research conclude the opposite of what we know to be true (throw enough money at a problem and you will fix it), we will continue to fix our issues with money. It's easy, it's proven, and it doesn't fail. And, as I've posted before...it's cheap! Bonuses and special pays are so inexpensive for the return that we get. We could spend quadruple on bonuses and special pays, and they would be cheap. (Enough) people's time can be bought for cheap to keep the meat machine going. How's that 11F problem working out for you?
raimius Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Also, UNTIL multiple years of research conclude the opposite of what we know to be true (throw enough money at a problem and you will fix it), we will continue to fix our issues with money. It's easy, it's proven, and it doesn't fail. And, as I've posted before...it's cheap! Bonuses and special pays are so inexpensive for the return that we get. We could spend quadruple on bonuses and special pays, and they would be cheap. (Enough) people's time can be bought for cheap to keep the meat machine going. What are your thoughts on Tim Kane's research and proposals from Bleeding Talent? (I'd also dispute your conclusion that money solves everything by citing things like Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and public education in the US.)
TacAirCoug Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I don't doubt you are pissed. Unfortunately, in this life, you are not "owed" anything, and I believe that to be the basis of your anger. Nobody thinks they are an underperformer; however, in the overage year groups and communities, we cut the bottom of the eligibles. Again, facts are facts. Don't get caught-up in the emotion of the right-sizing efforts or you will go insane. Obviously, you are assuming I'm one of the people the Air Force cast aside...you know what happens when you assume?
Fuzz Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Nobody thinks they are an underperformer; however, in the overage year groups and communities, we cut the bottom of the eligibles. Again, facts are facts. Don't get caught-up in the emotion of the right-sizing efforts or you will go insane. When you say cut are you talking Involuntarily separated only? or are you talking about all the FM programs only let out the bottom of the eligibles. Becuase if the latter is the case, I know 4 captains who pinned major right before or after they submitted their VSP, so you can't tell me that the bottom 10% were let out when theses guys had to be at worst case in the 30-40 percentile if memory serves correctly on the promotion rate.
backseatdriver Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) ...keep the meat machine going.... This statement lays bare the disconnect. It's about "keeping the machine going" - not about quality of life, not about balancing experience, not about retaining quality over quantity (or even good quality over poor quality), it's about "keeping the meat machine going." Hence why a squadron with 10 tails and a 1.5 crew ratio that has 15 newly minted Aircraft Commanders and 15 baby Copilots is "100% manned". "Spreadsheet is green, nothing to worry about here. And your complaints about lack of manning are completely unfounded." No regards for the quality or experience of those numbers. I would love to be a fly on the wall and hear this same rhetoric of "we can buy off enough people to keep the meat machine going - there isn't a manning problem" being pitched to CSAF or some of our MAJCOM/CCs.....I'm not talking about you briefing the polished slides that show everything green and on a trend line that's based on metrics you created - I mean using the exact verbiage you use here. My prediction is A) you wouldn't dare use that language in that scenario, and 2) If you did you would get crushed. Edited February 19, 2015 by backseatdriver 1
Fiver Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 What's the incentive for the Air Force to change the personnel system? We put bombs on target, provide air superiority, and move a ton of shit through the air and we do it better than any nation ever has before. It's all because of the people. Maybe..just maybe..the Air Force gets it right. Maybe the people that leave AD for the Reserves or the corporate world would provide too much chaos to the system that achieves its objectives better than everyone else. In the end, box checkers and ass kickers that are toxic leaders climb the ranks (Rhat, CZ); however, so do a lot of really good bros (maybe Welsh?). Is that any different than Exxon Mobile, Goldman Sachs, Amazon, or Coca Cola? I don't know. People/systems change because of the incentives available to them. For now, we are all incentivized with job security, pay, retirement, and authority. The personnel system is incentivized because it is still an all volunteer force that, contrary to popular belief, does not have an attrition problem. Until those incentives don't align with the goals, there is no reason to change. Now, I don't agree with any of that but it is certainly worth noting. I hate Chang more than my mother-in-law but if you can look through his pompous bullshit there is some value. The people I have found that I enjoy working for and have made me better, do not always get stars on their shoulder. Instead, the "mentors" that "mentor" me by telling me how make Colonel, even though that's not my goal, are the ones that make rank. It's mindless but I could do it for 20 years and drive nice cars, own a nice house, and have a solid retirement check, A1 does that for me so thanks. I have little to no stress and it is an easy paycheck if I can tolerate TDYs and deployments. The biggest losers do get kicked out as they should (great job A1). The next group of losers are able to stay because some of the top tier of leaders bail voluntarily because they do not feel valued. They in-turn give up their slots to that second group of losers that are now allowed to stay. That's where the Air Force can improve. It would be great for the all the best leaders to stay because they feel they are valued. They feel the decisions they make influence the direction of the organization. They trust the system. Until the Air Force is incentived to keep all those great leaders, the current system works and it works damn good. All that being said, I'm headed to the Reserves and the corporate world. Thanks AD for the opportunities, but I am tired of being a faceless ADSC, DOR, SSN, etc. 1
ThreeHoler Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 When you say cut are you talking Involuntarily separated only? or are you talking about all the FM programs only let out the bottom of the eligibles. Becuase if the latter is the case, I know 4 captains who pinned major right before or after they submitted their VSP, so you can't tell me that the bottom 10% were let out when theses guys had to be at worst case in the 30-40 percentile if memory serves correctly on the promotion rate. O-4 promotion rate is ~90%. Your math does not work.
ClearedHot Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 All that being said, I'm headed to the Reserves and the corporate world. Thanks AD for the opportunities, but I am tired of being a faceless ADSC, DOR, SSN, etc. Sadly, your statement is true. Regardless of what some well meaning senior officers will say, you are just a number in the endless machine. YOU can change that at an individual level by leading, teaching, and mentoring. After 24 years those interactions at a personal level are the thing I am most proud of. At this point in my life I have one simple litmus test to grade my career, can I look at myself in the mirror, thank god the answer is yes. I was FAR from perfect, but I did my best to lead, teach, and mentor and I hope I made a difference in a few lives. Good luck with the next chapter. 3
Karl Hungus Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Also, UNTIL multiple years of research conclude the opposite of what we know to be true (throw enough money at a problem and you will fix it), we will continue to fix our issues with money. It's easy, it's proven, and it doesn't fail. And, as I've posted before...it's cheap! Bonuses and special pays are so inexpensive for the return that we get. We could spend quadruple on bonuses and special pays, and they would be cheap. (Enough) people's time can be bought for cheap to keep the meat machine going. Interesting. The $25k/year bonus (a joke at $18k/year after taxes) hasn't increased since the late 90s, and would need to be around $36k/year in 2014 dollars to match inflation. Monthly flight pay at $840 in 1999 would be around $1200 today. $650 would be about $925. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the bonus isn't really a retention tool, given that very few people use it to influence their decision to stay- the people taking the bonus were going to stay anyway, so might as well get paid more money. But if you (translation: A1, because we know you're just some dipshit O-4 working some miserable job at the Pentagon) were actually willing to quadruple the bonus and monthly flight pays, I think you would actually see them as the retention tools they were designed to be. Everyone has a price, and for an extra $72k/year after taxes, I think a lot of people would be willing to forgo a seniority number at Delta and deal with the never ending stupidity of active duty. You might be surprised- I think it'll take something close to that over these next few years. We'll see.
Fuzz Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 O-4 promotion rate is ~90%. Your math does not work. I stand corrected on the promotion rate, thought it was lower than that.
deaddebate Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 https://www.afa.org/airwarfare/airwarfaresymposium/recordings Highlights of the "MAJCOM Priorities" panel: Gen Welsh discusses reaching reduced DOD targets of General Officers, namely the reduction of most MAJCOM CV positions from 3- to 2-stars, but other positions as well. Apparently these changes began in Congress two years ago. I wasn't aware of this, but it obviously makes sense as the Air Force shrunk. Everybody agrees that the COCOM's and NATO groups love the AF ISR capabilities. They all want more, and the AF sometimes struggles to meet the continually increasing demand for it. Lt Gen Wilson (AFGSC) talks about the modernization and "re-engine" of the B-52. As said before in other forums, the hope is to extend the service of the platform for about 25 more years. If that holds true, the estimated life of an average B-52 would be around 80 years.
deaddebate Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Also, UNTIL multiple years of research conclude the opposite of what we know to be true (throw enough money at a problem and you will fix it), we will continue to fix our issues with money. It's easy, it's proven, and it doesn't fail. He's absolutely right. The legend John Boyd regularly said that we should rely on existing answers and policies to answer new problems because those existing answers have a proven record of working. Boyd strongly advocated not changing policy simply because the uncertainty of a given situation can probably be easily understood and measurable, while the costs of changing the approach or tactics greatly upsets an organizational structure. Essentially, forcing our solutions on problems has worked for decades, and if at first the solution isn't readily reached, we should simply "double-down" on those same efforts. As many of you know, Boyd's real genius in these revolutionary "non-revolution" ideas within air combat sprung from his recognition and understanding of physics, namely the "Heisenberg Certainty and Determinancy Principle," now an oft-cited aspect of air-oriented warfare.
SurelySerious Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 He's absolutely right. The legend John Boyd regularly said that we should rely on existing answers and policies to answer new problems because those existing answers have a proven record of working. Boyd strongly advocated not changing policy simply because the uncertainty of a given situation can probably be easily understood and measurable, while the costs of changing the approach or tactics greatly upsets an organizational structure. Essentially, forcing our solutions on problems has worked for decades, and if at first the solution isn't readily reached, we should simply "double-down" on those same efforts. As many of you know, Boyd's real genius in these revolutionary "non-revolution" ideas within air combat sprung from his recognition and understanding of physics, namely the "Heisenberg Certainty and Determinancy Principle," now an oft-cited aspect of air-oriented warfare. It was Observe Obstruct Defer Standfast, right?
Ram Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I prefer the Air University-approved 8-step OODA loop. 2
GearMonkey Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I prefer the Air University-approved 8-step OODA loop. Twice as good as the original! Promote that man.
SocialD Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Deny deny counter-accuse?Lie, deny, counter-accuse, demand an apology.
SurelySerious Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I prefer the Air University-approved 8-step OODA loop. Golden. Unfortunately there was one opponent Boyd didn't build his OODA loop to defeat: the USAF. They've expanded further upon that 8-step defeat of the OODA loop's purpose. There are now 8 steps with 8 sub-steps which each have 3 processes. No wonder we develop leaders that can't make decisions; they never reach the end of the AF risk-averse decision process. 2
10percenttruth Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 The OODA Slow Roll. More like the OODA Split-S
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