Jump to content

TnkrToad

Super User
  • Content count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

TnkrToad last won the day on February 1

TnkrToad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

182 Excellent

About TnkrToad

  • Rank
    Flight Lead
  1. Leadership at the 'Deid

    I was apparently too subtle...it was a swipe against those who quipped about tanker dudes building tracks in the middle of the weather.
  2. Leadership at the 'Deid

    I'll add: - Plan massive tanker plans for OEF, OIF, etc., in the CAOC, while other tanker patches in WOCs build Night 1 packages for their crews and/or lead Night 1 missions. - Deploy to CAOC (too often) . . . and talk really slowly to CAF/other users who come up with grandiose/unexecutable plans refueling-wise - Plan large, refueling-intensive exercises, act as tanker SMEs in white cells, and/or lead exercise execution - Command ARWs (100 ARW/CC at Mildenhall: two in a row are tanker patches) . . . although this is the exception thus far - Advocate for maintaining standards/work to build & maintain critical skills, in the midst of an opstempo and leadership model that militate against developing expertise - Build AR tracks where users request them NKAWTG's assessment is accurate; those who volunteered for the WIC in the early 2000s in effect volunteered for huge arse pain. Aside from those who were clearly on the HPO track, those who graduated got the dual bonus of alternately deploying as aircrew or staff, followed by a deployment to the CAOC as a tanker planner, followed by another aircrew/deployed staff requirement . . . ad nauseum. Making oneself more eligible for deployments was hardly a selling point for the WIC early on. I'd say we're past that stage at this point; enough tanker patches to spread the wealth a bit more, and folks have a better idea what they bring to the fight. TT
  3. Leadership at the 'Deid

    My point is not about whether or not J O and Smokey Currin, in this case, are good dudes. I assume they are. If you combine folks with minimal tanker experience at the wing level, with folks who have minimal tanker experience at the group and squadron levels, you’re going to get clownish decisions—even if they’re all good dudes. Sprinkle in a bad apple here and there—it’s inevitable that at least some will end up as golden boys—and your odds of clownish behavior increase all the more. In sum, if tanker leaders come across as clowns, they’re directly reflecting the MAF leader development clown show. If you want competent tanker leaders, you need folks who’ve spent substantial portions of their careers in the tanker community. Furthermore, you need competent, experienced tanker bubbas to steer young Wg/CCs away from bad decisions, before they make them. Unfortunately, AMC doesn’t seem to have gotten that memo. TT
  4. Leadership at the 'Deid

    My guess is it has something to do with the youth movement in tanker leadership, combined with the lack of tanker experience among those leaders. Case in point: the ARW/CCs at both McConnell and Seymour Johnson are dudes who pinned on O-6 at 18 yrs and are Wg/CCs at 20 yrs into their careers. Both assiduously avoided the air refueling community for at least a decade. The McConnell CC never previously flew the KC-135, and the last time he flew the KC-10 was 2005. The SJ commander is slightly better; he actually started in the KC-135, but was gone from the community for 13 years, from ‘03-‘16. If the Wg leadership’s dearth of tanker experience is any indication of group & squadron CCs’ backgrounds, clueless/clownish leadership should come as no surprise. You want good leaders? Put people who know what they’re doing in those jobs. TT
  5. Just checked the ACP take rates, and thought I'd note a couple things: The overall take rate for initial bonus eligibles is still pretty abysmal--barely over 40%. The initial take rates for 11Fs & 11Rs are especially poor--both less than 40%. A glimmer of hope is that take rates for 11Ss & 11Hs are high (both over 55%). Their take rates have historically always been high, though, so this is hardly cause for celebration. If one factors in the old guy (NC & CE) bonus takers, though, things change a bit. More 11Fs have taken the old guy bonus than have initial eligibles; even though the 11F community is undermanned, at least its old farts are willing to hang around. This provides at least some hope that the 11F community might eventually get healthy. The 11H & 11S communities likewise had healthy old guy bonus take rates. Even though (last I checked) they're chronically undermanned, they will have substantially more stability than they would have otherwise without the old guy bonus. The 11R & 11M communities are screwed. Not only do they have low initial eligible take rates, but their old guy bonus take rates are abysmal, too. If neither the mid-career guys nor the grey beard O-5 types want to stay in, then all that'll be left in the squadrons will be high career-potential CCs & DOs leading a bunch of O-1s to O-3s who're merely biding their time until they reach the ends of their respective SUPT commitments and can get out. Not a recipe for success, in the near or long term. It'll be especially interesting when AMC starts picking its O-6s and above, not based on quality, but rather on simply who is left and can fog a mirror. Based on the stats, I presume the same is or will be true in the 11R community--leadership selection by virtue of one's mirror-fogging ability--but as an 11M, I'll just stay in my lane and hope for the best for the C2ISR types. TT
  6. I don't think it's public. All the data, down to each airframe, is posted on AFPC Secure, though. Go to AFPC Secure, then select RAW. In RAW, select Static Demographics. From the list of all the docs, you'll find one that says FY17 ACP Take Rates (or something like that--I'm not using a CAC-enabled computer right now). They break the data down in about 69 different ways--to include numbers of eligibles and takers (both short and long) for each individual MDS.
  7. The take rate listed on RAW is only for long-term (3+ yr) contracts. The overall long-term take (short term take rate doesn't much matter) is right around 40%. If short term contracts were included, the overall rate would be a little over 50%. Still not good news. It's noteworthy that for Tier 2, the 11Bs & 11Ss are bringing up the average. 11Ms are still below 40%. Tanker and C-17 bubbas (the two largest MDS pilot communities) seem especially inclined to get out--they're at about 35% right now. TT
  8. More SARC briefings soon.

    Dude, seriously? There are (and were) valid operational reasons to open and/or encourage greater degrees of military service to females and non-caucasian males. It provided for a substantially greater pool of folks from whom to draw, when the military always needs talent. The costs don't come close to outweighing the benefits in the case of transgendered troops. We can live without whatever additional talent they might bring to the table.
  9. Obviously devil's advocating, but why not argue for increasing the requirement to 3,000 hrs? - Big Blue will keep its shiny penny HPO types (regardless of airframe), since they'll never get that many hours by the time they reach the ends of their SUPT commitments. They'll stay in, and surely will make the service a better place, due to their superior PME and exec experiences - The AF will keep its fighter pilots, because it's way hard to build that many hours as a fighter bubba - The AF will get rid of those pesky heavy drivers who want to do nothing but fly, because they will have no problem meeting the 3k hr threshold by 10 yrs into their flying careers. The line-flyer heavy drivers will depart in droves, leaving the fighter mafia to run the AF, as it's been for most of the Air Force's (and its antecedents') history - Prior mil folks who already have a-word jobs will love it, because the increased barriers to entry will give them/their unions even more clout. They will, of course, point out how the friendly skies will be even safer than before, due to the more-stringent flying hour requirements - Regionals will collapse, but hey, everybody hates the regionals with their slave wages and such. The legacies will start flying smaller airplanes to fill the gaps left by the regionals' collapse--meaning more flying jobs to be had in the majors - For the more-limited number of folks who break into the big leagues, their pay will increase even further still, due to simple supply/demand economics If making regional pilots get ATPs was good, increasing ATP requirements to 3,000 hours must surely be better. Can't be too safe . . . TT
  10. Any mil pilot worth his salt will have no problem getting hired if the 1,500 hr rule is rescinded. Mil pilots got hired left and right in the late 90s, when folks just needed commercial licenses to get hired by regionals. No reason to believe it would be any different now. TT
  11. Promotion and PRF Information

    Did a bit more research: Jun '18 makes sense for 3 yrs TIG for the IPZs/substantially less for BPZs. The last '04 year group bubba pinned on NLT 31 May 15, so a Jun 2018 IPZ board for them exactly matches min 3 yrs TIG. What this means is that '06 year group folks (the last of whom didn't pin on 'til Dec '16) will meet the 2 BPZ board with as little as 1.5 yrs as O-4s (2 yrs at the outside). The really shiny penny '06 year group bubbas who get picked up two below will thus be selected for O-5 at the 12 yr point in their careers & pin on at barely 13 yrs into their careers . . . with substantial portions of those 13 years almost inevitably spent outside of ops units. The upshot is this: if the AF does grow substantially (thus increasing promotion opportunities/driving boards even earlier) and the AF continues to hemorrhage talent (driving even earlier promo boards, to backfill those who retired/separated), it's conceivable that we'll soon have 16 year pinned-on O-6s (who knows--possibly even younger if this trend continues; 15 yrs to O-6 for some?). Good news for the super-striver types, I guess . . . TT
  12. Promotion and PRF Information

    Just curious--is the 3 yr TIG requirement the issue for the IPZ year group, or the 1- and/or 2-yr BPZ groups? If the 3 yrs TIG is a requirement for promotion consideration, and the O-5 board was delayed accordingly, this can only mean one of two things: Option 1--The IPZ folks don't even have 3 yrs TIG by now: - Either Big Blue is hemorrhaging folks so fast that they have to push promo boards ever-earlier, such that even IPZ folks are meeting their O-5 boards with only 3 yrs TIG/will pin with 4 yrs TIG - Funny thing is, I take this to mean that nobody could meet this board BPZ. If the IPZ group is delayed due to TIG concerns, then the BPZ year groups couldn't possibly meet the board. If so, heads must be exploding all around the Air Force. Option 2--The BPZ folks are the ones with the 3 yrs TIG limfac: - In this case, Big Blue is pushing back promotions solely to protect its shiny penny BPZ types. If such is the case, I'd have a hard time accepting that my promotion was being delayed so that the AF could take care of its blue chip folks. I have no idea which of the two options is driving the promo board timing. Regardless, if the O-5 promo is delayed due to TIG issues, this indicates a real challenge for the Air Force. TT
  13. Promotion and PRF Information

    My guess is the slowdown in promotion increments is due to relatively low number of folks in the '97ish year groups. Promotion increments (in this case for O-5) are based on backfilling O-5s who've retired/been promoted/separated/died. Also, changes in AF endstrength can change things. If AF end strength does increase (as it's theoretically supposed to, under this administration), there will be more total O-5 billets to fill--but as far as I know this hasn't yet begun. Where we are now, If comparatively few even made it to the 20 year inflection point, then there will be few needing backfill as they retire (even if only a small proportion remain on AD). If my hunch is correct, increments will eventually start to increase again as larger year groups reach retirement eligibility and--due to improved economy/a-word hiring/frustration with the AF in general--depart the AF in larger numbers. AF expansion--again, if it happens--will drive increments even higher still. This will pose a further problem for the AF. Right now, folks meet the O-6 board on time around the 20 yr point. This means the super-strivers who make O-5 and O-6 two below can be pinned on at 17 yrs--that's pretty stinkin' young. If folks get out in ever-greater numbers, this means Big Blue will have to either further increase promotion rates (quality control problem) or push boards even earlier in officers' careers (experience problem--smart striver types who have little to no background for the higher-level organizations/staffs they find themselves in). Regardless, not a recipe for long-term success. TT
  14. A little nugget worth considering: While the 1,500 pilot shortage is a big deal, that's only part of the problem. According to my research, the Air Force pilot inventory has dropped from 15,300 to 13,800 since FY11 (1,500 pilots). In that same time, the total number of manned aircraft aviators (pilots, navs, CSOs, ABMs) has dropped by 2,200 (20,900 to 18,700). The only aviator group that is numerically growing right now is RPA pilots. I guess that's why the AF is focusing its bonus program so heavily on them--the RPA community is the only place where Big Blue is getting a return on its ACP investments. Bottom line--the shrinking of the nav & ABM career fields will create even greater demand for pilots on staffs, at a time when the pilot community is already hemorrhaging bodies. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums
×