addict Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 The only way to solve the staff problem is to get more guys into the squadrons, so that you have more people to send to staff. 365's and boring jobs knock out a lot of free agents who 7-day opt, until the list gets whittled down to the guy who simply can't say NO because he's at an earlier point in his career. Those hits keep happening to the same year groups and the force gets out of shape. The AF needs to find a way to not sacrifice 4 or 5 bodies to fill a bill for one.
Duck Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 I totally copy why we only sent 2 dudes to fighters, but eventually that will catch up too. They should have thought of doing the whole TFI squadrons way earlier. Great way to get AD hands on Guard Iron and it saves a ton of money. It's definitely not the perfect answer but it could have smoothed out the full AB/ idle boards that we see all the freaking time.
General Chang Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Animal, I haven't read the T.K. book, but I'll put it on my list. My last thought here, but I'll keep monitoring. There are a ton of numbers being dissected daily at the Pentagon. Additionally, those numbers are being examined by your peers; fighter guys, heavy guys, helos, RPA, mx, cyber...EVERYONE is represented. These folks have been in the fight the last 12 years; only recently have most of them entered the staff world. They understand your pain, and they're doing their best to work the mission and the people. Occasionally mistakes happen, but a vast majority of the decisions being made are the right ones for the right reasons. However, keep posting ideas here on all of these topics, because your innovative idea might be seen by an AO and run up the chain to the highest levels. If you're on here just to complain, I can understand some of that, but find time in your day to reflect on why you're unhappy, and if it's institutional rather than personal, come up with solutions, keep posting here, and work it through your chain if able. Re: the bonus, it really is simple: am I willing to continue to serve in uniform for the next x number of years in any position the Air Force throws my way (to include a potential 365- you should always tell your spouse to expect one 365 at some point in your career, and if it doesn't happen, good for you) AND HAVE A GOOD ATTITUDE DOING IT (no matter what "it" is). If the answer is no, you'll be fine- officers are extremely talented--go chase your dreams; a heart felt "thank you" for your service from the bottom of my heart. If the answer is yes, sign the papers, go out there and LEAD! YOU will directly influence whether your airmen have a good day or bad, just through your attitude and leadership. This holds true if you're supervising one or 100- trust me, I've done both. If you see problems, try to fix them. But don't be a "woe is me, my life sucks" obstacle. We have far too many O-4s and O-5s like that now. If you can't do this, please don't sign the bonus. Thank you for your service. Young guys...this is an amazing Air Force with amazing opportunities- dream big, do your primary job to the absolute best of your ability WITH a good attitude, and watch how doors start to open for you. And if you ever end up on the "wrong side of the ledger" on an issue, don't take it personally- the Air Force is doing what it must to stay the best that ever existed. Sit down with your family and make your decisions together, with an eye on the future, not on past wrongs. And, when you decide to leave...thank you for your service. Keep the faith. Edited June 28, 2013 by General Chang 4
TnkrToad Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Keep the faith. Trying to keep the faith, but faith without works is dead . . . I still don't see the "glut"--at least among those who've reached bonus eligibility. It would help if you could post the most recent "Red Line/Blue Line" charts for pilots (much as Liquid posted different slides on another discussion topic), then try to explain in a rational way how/why this year's ARP plan makes sense . . . because it sure doesn't to me. (Caveat--my info is a bit over one year old, but in the "closed system" that is Air Force manning, the numbers I've seen can only have gotten worse): - 11Ms: No glut that I can see; '93-'97 year groups undermanned, meaning that '98 & '99 year groups backfill gaps left by those earlier year groups. Throw in the fact that 11Ms are filling all manner of billets that 11S/11F/others should fill, and my back of the napkin math shows that the 2000, maybe '01 11M year group is the oldest FGO year group that is effectively undermanned. The '02ish and later crowd haven't reached bonus eligibility yet. Having been in a UPT then a mobility squadron in the late 90s & watching every pilot that could fog a mirror walk into civilian flying jobs . . . well, I hope Big Blue is happy with having a mobility pilot force populated almost exclusively by Lts through junior Majs -- Is the fact that 11Ms are apparently happy to go the Forks to fly RPAs in order to get out of the AMC grind not proof enough that 11Ms are undermanned? - 11S & 11H: I have zero understanding as to why no special consideration was given here. The '93 all the way back to at least the '05 year groups are significantly undermanned. Why they're not getting more, not less, bonus money than 11Fs offered to them is a complete mystery to me. Only thing I can possibly fathom is that Big Blue assumes that these patriots will stay in, increased bonus or not. Given the criticality of their missions, the fact their manning is worse than that of 11Fs, and the additional fact that they spend more time in the fight than the average 11F, this seems like an awfully big gamble - 11Fs: Ironically, the '93 through approx '03 year groups are actually pretty healthy relative to "red line" requirements. Odd, then, that this community is specially targeted for retention While your words are soothing, without data to back up your assertions I can conclude only one of four things: My data is invalid (considering my source I doubt it), you're ill-informed (you don't appear to be), your're propagandizing (I really hope not), or our leaders are engaging in "tribal warfare" (thin other communities' herds, so that the 11Fs stay on top of the Air Force food chain--cynical, but perhaps the most plausible of the aforementioned scenarios). There might be another possible conclusion, but I can't think of one. What am I missing?
pawnman Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Trying to keep the faith, but faith without works is dead . . . I still don't see the "glut"--at least among those who've reached bonus eligibility. It would help if you could post the most recent "Red Line/Blue Line" charts for pilots (much as Liquid posted different slides on another discussion topic), then try to explain in a rational way how/why this year's ARP plan makes sense . . . because it sure doesn't to me. (Caveat--my info is a bit over one year old, but in the "closed system" that is Air Force manning, the numbers I've seen can only have gotten worse): - 11Ms: No glut that I can see; '93-'97 year groups undermanned, meaning that '98 & '99 year groups backfill gaps left by those earlier year groups. Throw in the fact that 11Ms are filling all manner of billets that 11S/11F/others should fill, and my back of the napkin math shows that the 2000, maybe '01 11M year group is the oldest FGO year group that is effectively undermanned. The '02ish and later crowd haven't reached bonus eligibility yet. Having been in a UPT then a mobility squadron in the late 90s & watching every pilot that could fog a mirror walk into civilian flying jobs . . . well, I hope Big Blue is happy with having a mobility pilot force populated almost exclusively by Lts through junior Majs -- Is the fact that 11Ms are apparently happy to go the Forks to fly RPAs in order to get out of the AMC grind not proof enough that 11Ms are undermanned? - 11S & 11H: I have zero understanding as to why no special consideration was given here. The '93 all the way back to at least the '05 year groups are significantly undermanned. Why they're not getting more, not less, bonus money than 11Fs offered to them is a complete mystery to me. Only thing I can possibly fathom is that Big Blue assumes that these patriots will stay in, increased bonus or not. Given the criticality of their missions, the fact their manning is worse than that of 11Fs, and the additional fact that they spend more time in the fight than the average 11F, this seems like an awfully big gamble - 11Fs: Ironically, the '93 through approx '03 year groups are actually pretty healthy relative to "red line" requirements. Odd, then, that this community is specially targeted for retention While your words are soothing, without data to back up your assertions I can conclude only one of four things: My data is invalid (considering my source I doubt it), you're ill-informed (you don't appear to be), your're propagandizing (I really hope not), or our leaders are engaging in "tribal warfare" (thin other communities' herds, so that the 11Fs stay on top of the Air Force food chain--cynical, but perhaps the most plausible of the aforementioned scenarios). There might be another possible conclusion, but I can't think of one. What am I missing? I'm still low on the totem pole, but is the 11F "shortage" driven by staff requirements, while the 11H/11S don't have the same staff requirements? If the 11H/11S have enough guys to keep the squadrons running, with a minimum of staff requirements, that could be part of the reason big blue thinks we need more 11Fs.
Vetter Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Another "leader" telling us to have good attitudes and keep the faith. Cute. 1
TnkrToad Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) I'm still low on the totem pole, but is the 11F "shortage" driven by staff requirements, while the 11H/11S don't have the same staff requirements? If the 11H/11S have enough guys to keep the squadrons running, with a minimum of staff requirements, that could be part of the reason big blue thinks we need more 11Fs. Not a personnelist, but for smaller flying communities it seems like you'd need proportionally more folks on staff, rather than less. Seems to me every AOC, NAF, MAJCOM, Hq AF, etc., staff needs folks from all the different flying communities, so that those organizations' respective CCs can make wise decisions. Just look at USAFE--one sq of HH-60s, multiple sq's of fighters . . . which community needs to have a higher staff officer to ops flier ratio? Obviously, in order to provide the 603rd AOC, 3rd AF, USAFE & EUCOM staffs with rescue helo expertise, Big Blue needs to retain proportionally more HH-60 peeps than they do the various flavors of 11Fs . . . An F-15E bubba can reasonably talk capes & lims of F-16s & F-15Cs, but only an HH-60 guy (or HC-130 bubba, but none of those stationed in theater) can talk CSAR helo capes & lims. This year's ARP seems to support the exact opposite--relatively limits the number of HH-60 guys who stay in and do staff work by offering a lesser bonus. Doesn't make sense. Again, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a rational basis for this year's ARP. Edited to add a little more specificity. Edited June 28, 2013 by TnkrToad
TheInner Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 The only way to solve the staff problem is to get more guys into the squadrons, so that you have more people to send to staff. Understood, but that goes back to a couple of points. First, the pipeline literally can't produce the quantity needed. I know a couple of guys who worked plenty of science projects at Luke trying to figure out how to kick the FTU into overdrive and it just couldn't be done for a number of reasons but the only thing that gets you close is pulling anyone eligible back for a 2 month TX vs pulling newbies through a 9 month B-Course which creates (at least temporarily) a void in the 11F billets all those bros just left to go through the TX. Second, the timeframe to take a UPT stud from graduation to MR wingman is over a year while taking a dude from a squadron to a staff takes just a week or two (essentially the time required to show up and inprocess). I certainly agree with your logic but an overmanned fighter squadron hurts combat capability due to lack of sorties to go around and a constant merry go round of B-course grads showing up and FLs just getting experienced in time to leave results in a squadron just trying to keep their cranium above water with upgrades and currencies.
11F Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Another "leader" telling us to have good attitudes and keep the faith. Cute. Don't get me wrong, this was comically written, but it's cynical junk like this that gets annoying.
slackline Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Don't get me wrong, this was comically written, but it's cynical junk like this that gets annoying. Don't get me wrong, but that was the kind of comment that virtually everyone on here would have cheered until a senior leader showed up. I pretty much agree that that attitude is bad overall, but I find it funny that a bunch of people who three days ago were super cynical are now jumping all over themselves to appear in agreement with a guy who claims to be in a high level position. I also believe in allowing people to change their minds when presented with a logical "other side" of the coin. I'm not saying Chang and Liquid aren't the real deal, and I find the info they're putting out there very, to be redundant, informative. I do remember though, that this is an Internet forum. I'll take the nuggets they're giving us, apply some common sense, pass it through my AF propaganda filter, and try to then make educated decisions based on what passes those litmus tests. Some things they're saying pass muster, some seem like leadership that still just doesn't want to admit just how bad their predecessors let the situation get. I hope everything their saying is on target. I don't believe they'd lie to us. Not intentionally anyway. 3
Rusty Pipes Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Don't get me wrong, this was comically written, but it's cynical junk like this that gets annoying. You know what else gets annoying... "leaders" at the Pentagon telling the guys who are trying to actually do the job how "misguided and wrong" they are. I like to hear the perspective from guys like Chang, but when I see statements talking about all the guys at the Pentagon making these decisions saying they have been in the field for the past 12 years, well it just isn't true. For example... a recent Sq CC of mine was a 2 BPZ guy who went from a first tour pilot in one MWS to early staff to Intern (real Masters paid for by big blue BTW) to a qual in my MWS (about 18 months on station and managed to become an IP in that time after only being an AC in his first MWS... hmmmm) before shipping off to SAASS followed by another staff tour at the Pentagon for 2-3 yrs and then straight to being a flying Sq CC. No doubt a sharp guy, but don't tell me that this guys has been in the fight for the past 12 years... he hasn't! Was he smart... yup! Was he a leader... not even close! Less than 2 yrs on station and off he went. Don't get me wrong, he was a nice guy and a good manager of the Squadron... but if I had to list in order all the pilots in the Sq I'd want to fly into combat with he would have been in the bottom 25% for sure. If I were a betting man I'd say that a lot of the guys at the Pentagon that Chang is talking about who are making these decisions and running these numbers have similar resumes as the Sq CC I was talking about... in fact he is actually one of them right now (again). We certainly need guys like that, but being smart and knowing doctrine really well doesn't mean you "get it". Like I said in a previous post... guys like that a who were those super fast burners a few years ago were the ones who made the decisions that put us in the situation we are in now. I'll bet they thought they had it right back then too... Edited June 28, 2013 by Rusty Pipes 1
Skitzo Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 There are plenty of 11m's filling 11s staff billets.
TnkrToad Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Don't get me wrong, this was comically written, but it's cynical junk like this that gets annoying. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" . . . for cynicism and all manner of other ills. Unfortunately the self-described senior leaders on this board seem incapable of or unwilling to describe why this FY's ARP makes institutional sense. Advice as to individual success is great--bloom where you're planted, knock out your PME early (don't even need to crack open a book to pass SOS, ACSC or AWC in correspondence,etc.) is great, but that's not what the ARP is all about. The ARP is all about institutional management, and senior leaders are institutional leaders. If none of those leaders can explain why the ARP makes institutional sense, and if they're incapable of seeing beyond oversimplified Red Line/Blue Line charts that fail to account for all the slack that the 11Ms, for instance, are picking up for other communities, then our institution is screwed.
TnkrToad Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 There are plenty of 11m's filling 11s staff billets. Exactly my point--lots of 11Ms filling 11S/11F/16G/etc. staff billets, they're over-represented in AETC flying billets (how many 11Fs in T-6s, at Pueblo, USAFA, etc.?), MC-12s--you guessed it--11Ms are filling those, too . . . and yet the 11M community is supposedly "overmanned". BTW, I didn't see any airlift or tanker units shut down due to sequestration--surely if they were so terribly overmanned, then some number of mobility squadrons should have been stood down, while the under-worked mobility units left open could have picked up the added workload. Based on the evidence, and in the absence of anyone offering a reasonable, factually supported rationale to the contrary, I can only conclude that this year's ARP is nothing short of gross buffoonery. Rant off.
Herk Driver Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Tried to end it as a Chief Pilot, and was told to shut up and color . You are (were?) in a much better position to do something... Were... Had a great Chief Pilot that made terrific recommendations and most of the time, they were followed through on. Sometimes we just had a difference of opinion... Sometimes sent guys that were in line for Instructor upgrade even though they may have been going to a new assignmnet outside the MDS...normally only if there was no one else ready to go and we could get a moderate return on investment and normally only if it could/would be beneficial to the AF down the road...(i.e. easier to upgrade down the road in the new MDS or if they came back). Never to pad a PRF... Edited June 28, 2013 by Herk Driver
AnimalMother Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 I don't believe they'd lie to us. Not intentionally anyway. I have some nice beachfront property you might be interested in, dirt cheap. PM me if you want to take a look. But back on a serious note, leadership may be able to church it up or issue a plausible excuse, but in the end it's still a falsehood. WMDs? Yup, we know where they are; the Lusitania is a passenger vessel, we swear; all you guys are eligible for VSP. I know guys that have been absolutely crushed for doing the same thing back up the chain of command. I have a lot of good book titles you might be interested in, I'll throw em in for free.
General Chang Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Were... Had a great Chief Pilot that made terrific recommendations and most of the time, they were followed through on. Sometimes we just had a difference of opinion... Sometimes sent guys that were in line for Instructor upgrade even though they may have been going to a new assignmnet outside the MDS...normally only if there was no one else ready to go and we could get a moderate return on investment and normally only if it could/would be beneficial to the AF down the road...(i.e. easier to upgrade down the road in the new MDS or if they came back). Never to pad a PRF... IP school is ALWAYS worth the investment, even if they move straight into another MWS. IP is much more about the mentality than stick and rudder. It's worth every penny in the scenarios you guys are describing. The 0.5 point "bump" it gives the guy on the promotion board is simply a pleasant byproduct for that officer.
General Chang Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Guys, -11F crisis leads to increased bonus contract length. Everyone "thinks" they see this or that within their own little sphere of influence. You do not have the big picture. Lt Gen Jones (the AF/A1) does. Nobody is going to post strength numbers on this website. The simple truth is that the pilot crisis exists in only one AFSC, and the rest of you are lucky they kept the political-hot-potato-bonus around at all. You take issue with my hat-in-hand comment? Just be grateful and sign or don't sign. But stop blaming the Air Force for your generally miserable attitude. Military life is good- look at the retention numbers that are public. RECORD LEVELS. The word of the day today is now "gratitude" everyone.
Rusty Pipes Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Guys, -11F crisis leads to increased bonus contract length. Everyone "thinks" they see this or that within their own little sphere of influence. You do not have the big picture. Lt Gen Jones (the AF/A1) does. Nobody is going to post strength numbers on this website. The simple truth is that the pilot crisis exists in only one AFSC, and the rest of you are lucky they kept the political-hot-potato-bonus around at all. You take issue with my hat-in-hand comment? Just be grateful and sign or don't sign. But stop blaming the Air Force for your generally miserable attitude. Military life is good- look at the retention numbers that are public. RECORD LEVELS. The word of the day today is now "gratitude" everyone. Seriously dude??? You pretty much just lost all credibility with every crew dawg in this forum. Retention numbers??? When airlines aren't hiring and the economy sucks of course retention is going to be high. You don't need an MBA from Toro or an ACSC Masters to figure that one out! Don't think for a second that the retention is any higher today because of brilliant and inspiring leadership from above. Grateful??? Gratitude??? We'd better get those Thunderbirds back up in the air because if this is the retention/recruiting message from our managers at the Pentagon we're in a lot of trouble. 1
deskjockey Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Based on the commentary on the PRF thread, this guy is a sham. He's just trying to stir the pot. Either that or he's not playing with a full deck...either way, not worth your time.
theat6bisasham Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Jesus Christ. This guy can't be serious. No, that's the problem..he IS serious. My favorite part that the old heads mimic now is the if-you-don't-like-it-then-leave attitude. Guess what general, no matter what you think, when most of us joined the air force this little gem of a joke called the 365-to-no-where-for-no-reason didn't exist, along with countless other BS maneuvers by big blue (RIF, VSP denials then RIF, non continuation of majors) to get us out the door without so much as a nickel to our name. The original game plan was 10 year contract with option to finish the 20 and get a retirement. The stupid military retirement system, with it's all-or-nothing benefit is what is causing all this pain. I'd gladly step aside if I could get a damn penny back on the 15 years i have invested, but I can't..so here I sit...biding my time...waiting...probably making O-5 because I smile and nod and agree with the boss in public the best I can stand to. Check check check the boxes, all at government expense, and for what? And before you even say it..Yea yea, yuck it up and tell me the same tired line "you signed up for it"....guess what, big blue changed their minds on alot of what was represented to us, and now WE are not supposed to be bitter. 1
Karl Hungus Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Guys, -11F crisis leads to increased bonus contract length. Everyone "thinks" they see this or that within their own little sphere of influence. You do not have the big picture. Lt Gen Jones (the AF/A1) does. Nobody is going to post strength numbers on this website. The simple truth is that the pilot crisis exists in only one AFSC, and the rest of you are lucky they kept the political-hot-potato-bonus around at all. You take issue with my hat-in-hand comment? Just be grateful and sign or don't sign. But stop blaming the Air Force for your generally miserable attitude. Military life is good- look at the retention numbers that are public. RECORD LEVELS. The word of the day today is now "gratitude" everyone. UFB.
Danny Noonin Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Military life is good- look at the retention numbers that are public. RECORD LEVELS. The word of the day today is now "gratitude" everyone. Fuck off. The facts you've presented are good. The bullshit condescending commentary shows that you're an out of touch douchebag. I say this as a dude who got out and now is back in full time and happy about it. 1
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