Lord Ratner

I'd like to respond, but I don't honestly know what your point is. I'll aim for what I think you're getting at. Under fighter pilot leadership (for all but four of the past 30 years), the Air Force can't seem to convince a bunch of fighter pilots to stay in the Air Force. And at a time when fighter pilots are doing more fighter pilot-y things than in the past decade. And yes, we should be looking at civilian (and all other successful) organizations to learn from their retention and resource management strategies. Or would you rather keep trying to extinguish this fire with gasoline? Besides, if you're not a millennial, then there's at least a reasonable chance that you're high enough ranking to be part of the problem.

I'm looking at the whole group (made up of individuals, yes), and how the Air Force is as a result. I don't care about the individuals. But the system where pilots run the Air Force has not yielded results. And the argument that only only those with first-hand experience in the tactical operation of an organization can run it at the strategic level is disproved by many organizations outside of the Air Force. I won't go as far as to say that pilots can't run the Air Force. But the idea that they must in order for it to run well is an unproven theory. And honestly I don't know that it's worth it, or affordable, to keep testing the theory.

TL;DR: We like to think that pilots have to run the Air Force, but they got us into this mess. What other conclusion is left to be drawn? With very few exceptions, the Air Force is helmed up and down the chain by pilots. Groups, wings, NAFs, MAJCOMs, staff positions, functionals, CAOC spots, deployed units, IGs... Lots and lots of pilots. Who is responsible for the failings of an organization if not for the leaders? How many excuses are we supposed to make for them? And let's not play the "good dude" game either. Being a successful organizational leader is not about how fun you were to drink with 10 years ago, or how sh*t-hot you were in the jet, or how much you "get it" when you're having a closed door town hall with a random unit in their bar heritage room. There is only one measure-- how is the organization doing. The examples are legion. I'll give a few that have, over the years, stood out as very distilled, specific instances of poor leadership. 1. DV visits. If I had a dollar for every DV that said they didn't want the base to stop doing it's mission to prepare for their arrival after they arrived, you'd think I was paying my way through medical school the old fashioned way. If you can't fathom the way your rank and position affect your subordinates in an organization you've been a part of for 30+ years, on what planet should you be leading it? Can we all just finally admit that yes, they do want it? They like it a lot. Even if not for themselves, then for what they believe the military should look like. But most likely because that type of treatment is addictive. Name one theory of leadership taught in any level of PME that promotes the type of behavior we see when senior leaders visit a base. Did they skip those classes? Because I have a f*cking masters degree in it from ACSC. 2. We have been at the Deid since what? 2002? I have no clue. A long time. And of those years, every. single. summer. has been excruciatingly hot. Yet somehow, despite there being an airport right down the road in the exact same climate with hundreds of flights per day, leadership at AUAB has not figured out how to get every plane suitable air conditioning for the preflight. Seriously? Some flight doc measured the internal surfaces of the aircraft at over 160F, and the air temp inside a boom pod at over 140. This isn't a war against the Axis in an austere location, it's normal ops. If you can't look at that as a leader (and one who has flown planes!) and deduce that there should be adequate cooling for the aircraft... RyanAir is the human equivalent of a Pakistani poultry trailer without the rights activists, yet they manage to keep the planes cool on the ground. Oh, and let's not forget about the black mold that no leader saw fit to address until Congress heard about it. 3. Of course, the pilot crisis. And not that it happened, not the years of neglect that led up to it, not the countless forums and round-tables, and hangar-flies that went ignored, while the CGO/Maj force screamed for attention. I actually understand how we got to where we are today. What I don't get is how now that the problem exists, announced, published, and even presented to congress, how can we still be bungling the response? This thread is proof. Changes to the promotion process? Secret. Timeline? Mystery. People who apply for the bonus early? Gotcha! I'm not saying pilots can't make great organizational leaders. I'm sure some are great. But we have two things to compare: A. That a war-fighting organization can be effectively led by selecting from a small percentage of the overall population (pilots) those who demonstrate over the first half of their career a talent for paperwork, physical fitness, administrative tasks, and personal presentation, but who generally have little to no experience leading people until squadron command. This, as of today, is an unproven theory. B. That a war-fighting organization led by a small percentage of the overall population (pilots) who demonstrated over the first half of their career a talent for paperwork, physical fitness, administrative tasks, and personal presentation, but who generally have little to no experience leading people until squadron command, will crumble under external pressures, e.g., Congressional inquiries, workforce competition, etc. This, as of today, is supported by the evidence. If pilots make such great organizational leaders, I'd love to see it. Check rides aren't graded on who had the best attitude. I'd rather choke that go through it, but I'm guessing WIC grads, the best of our pilots, didn't get their patch because they filled out the 781s better than anyone else. No one cares how your flight suit looks if you show up the the ARCP late. The flying world, last I checked, prides itself of results-based assessment, yet when it comes to leading the organization, we abandon the principal for proclamations of past dudeliness... At some point we have to assign responsibility. If you want to say that it's just because we are picking the wrong pilots for the job, fine, but guess what? Pilots are the ones doing the picking. Pilots are the ones who have signed off on our ludicrous promotions system. Pilots are the ones standing by silently while the legal system is twisted to suit the preferences of a vindictive wing commander. Pilots are the ones telling congress it's pretty darn good. Pilots are the ones telling young captains to quit if they don't like it, someone will gladly replace them. Please, tell me why I'm wrong.

Because pilots don't make good organizational leaders Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

Actually, I haven't been able to figure this one out. Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

Unless you're lazy Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

It's the ground based you'll need to worry about. If I recall correctly, the Israelis had a prototype that could take out an artillery round or a mortar. That was a decade ago. And if they apply even a fraction of the AI already available to Google through their visual recognition efforts, it could conceivably track, ID, and target you without any detectable signal. If the laser is powerful enough to punch through a plane in say... three seconds... It would be pretty hard to beat it before it beat you. Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

I don't pay an annual subscription to BO.net to have the drama shut down just when it's getting good... Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

ViperMan, you're obviously involved, because you're taking it personally. In either case, here's why you're wrong. This isn't people who signed one bonus, and expect another. They signed early, just to get the paperwork done. But other than the amount of money one gets by having their bonus start on time (as opposed to the usual lateness the Air Force demonstrates each year), early signers were doing the AF a favor. It doesn't matter what the contract says. Logic says that the people who HELPED there Air Force by signing early should be taken care of if the bonus goes up. But even more to the point, it's almost laughable that "leaders" who are now publicly begging for solutions to the problem they let fester can't see why this is such a perceived betrayal. It's like there is some sort of competition at the staff level to see how many tone deaf proclamations and policies they can put out. You say you're on your way out. Good. If the Air Force has any chance at all of pulling out of this dive, it's going to need leaders who can actually empathize with the people they claim to want to retain. I'm sure you felt your dissertation was nothing but solid logic and tough love from the top rope. To me it sounded like someone who is way too excited to tell us how stupid and greedy we are. Which, ironically, probably has way more effect on retention than the bonus you're defending. Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

You're just so pissed that people don't want to be in the Air Force as much as you do, aren't you? Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

ENTP. You may have better luck with 16personalities. It's a quicker test I think, with a better interface Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

No. Shell 77 was a malfunctioning part. We did recently have a plane with a massive crack on one of the main spars. They caught that one in time fortunately. Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

This is the exact plan with the KC-135. Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

There were no court challenges (since they weren't breaking any rules), so the SCOTUS could not do anything. Dems knew they were SOL. Raising a court challenge would have just given the gop a court victory to shield themselves with Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Sorry, I didn't mean America can't afford it financially, I mean America can't afford to have a weakened Air Force. The AF can't increase the bonus. Only Congress can. The AF shot for 60k, which in my opinion is pretty amazing, and they got stomped. We are a pretty (reasonably) cynical group here, but now we think Congress will just open the purse? That's the most optimistic sh*t I've ever heard in my life. Trust me, the day Congress allows the bonus or flight pay to compete with the airlines will be two fiscal year after there's no one left to pay it to. Your arguments are too ideal, IMO. Of course the AF can work on QoL AND money, but they won't. You know it, I know it. Now that the bonus went up I fully expect the true believers to use this as an excuse to wait a year or two and see how it affects retention, while more people leave. Maybe another "round table" or two, but no real action. I think there are a lot of leaders, way more than we realized, who find the concept of making changes to the AF to make people happy morally repugnant. They "dealt with it," so we should too. Now they can point to the bonus, which isn't enough, and say "See? We did what you asked, now stop complaining." I could be wrong, obviously. But I'm trying to think of a solution in the context of what's possible. And in the interest of full realism, no, I do not expect the AF, or Congress to get it right. I think there will be hearings about the pilot crisis that will go something like this: DC: Where are the pilots? AF: Let's give the bonus some time *Pilots leave* DC: Where are the pilots? AF: We're making changes we think will fix it. DC: What about stop loss? AF: We don't think stop loss is the right answer for this issue [after they thought it was for a while, of course] *Pilots leave, missions visibly (CNN) suffer* DC: Where are the pilots? AF: Our changes didn't have the planned effect. DC: What a about stop loss? AF: We don't think stop loss is the right answer for this issue DC: We disagree, do a stop loss AF: ok *Stop loss goes for six months or so, then makes headlines* DC: Are you people crazy why are we still stop-lossing our heroes?!?! AF: *blinking on CSPAN* ...But you said-- DC: End the stop loss! AF: ok *Pilots leave. Hollow force. Period of struggle* *Major attack, war, terrorist event, etc* *Americans step up, old hats return, patriotism and country music result in massive military spending, AF is reborn* Rinse and repeat

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here and say I hope they don't raise the bonus. They will never compete. Congress just won't do it, so they will never realistically pay enough to make enough people stay to solve the crisis. The right answer is to fix the system. Treat people better. Define realistic capabilities based on number of aircraft and aircrew and stick to them. Want more sorties? Give us more people and planes. The AF general level leadership needs to start giving Congress, and whoever the mythical, no-one-can-say-no-to COCOM commanders, real capability levels, and stick to them. No more cbts just because some bureaucrat thinks it's a good idea. No more spending skilled labor on jobs that can be done by a two striper or civilian. No more making six-figure employees pick up leaves for a staff visit. Treat the talent like a resource. If that means we drop all those things and find ourselves with excess capacity, fine, do another RIF. But treat people the way they know they are worth, and then, only then, worry about the money. A bigger bonus or more flight pay isn't going to fix this, because they will never, ever, ever be able to raise it enough. The only hope is to recapitalize on camaraderie, patriotism, and self efficacy. I don't want them to offer more money because it's going to prolong the problem, and America can't afford it. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Please. Pretty sure you've never had to take our PT test. #CheckYourGruntPrivilege Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And the AF was also furloughing, let's not forget Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Only valid if you also assume the AF will have solved the shortage crisis at the same time the airlines tank. You can always go back to the AF (these days). You can't retroactively set your seniority. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

https://aviationbull.com/2017/mar/28/what-will-year-cost-me

The Deid won't be touched. The other countries are uninterested in impacting the base, and have made that clear Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Sure. Useful, I have no doubt. The problem as I see it is that you only get so many years in a lifetime. Our promotion and career development system, and least on the pilot side, is a game of checking as many boxes as you can. Jack of all trades, master of none. The real question is what's more true? Do you need to see the sausage maker to be a successful squadron commander (while realizing that no matter what staff jobs to do, you're still only going to see 5-10% of the bureaucracy), or will first hand leadership experience as a CGO/Junior FGO (which you will need for nearly all of your sq/cc duties) be a better use of limited development time? Perspective always helps, but there are endless examples of leaders being successful running organizations they never served in as workers. We have to choose, and toxic leadership is something of a hot topic these days, for good reason Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Jesus I never know what the f*** you're talking about. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We had a guy in my SOS class who was being completely genuine when he said he was too tired to go out because he had never worked past 4pm, or on a Friday, every, since finishing tech school. Not saying all not rated jobs are like this, but have you ever once even heard of a flying job like that in the AF? When I told them what a week in a flying squadron was like, they looked sorry for me, as though working a 16 hour day was inhumane. But I agree with brick. If all a pilot does is fly, why should they be promoted into a leadership rank? I think many of us are talking out of both sides of our mouths. We want to fly a lot, but also get promoted to a leadership rank (LtC)? I don't think that's fair or good for the org. I think what we need is to drop the idea that staff jobs help leadership. Sure, it's useful to know how sausage is made. But a captain or Major will get more out of leading a shop of 100 airman than he will out of a desk job crunching numbers, as far as leadership of airmen is concerned. If we still want the AF run by pilots, which is not necessarily the best idea IMO, then we should change the system so exec, staff, aide, and all the other "broadening" jobs go to the support officers, while the pre-ordained future senior leaders go run a mx or SF shop, with 360° feedback, to see if they really have what it takes to run a squadron. But that means the people who choose to fly for four assignments in a row (with only flying related jobs) don't make it past Major or Captain, which doesn't seem unfair to me. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

They put in a recommendation for continuation. It's in the regs posted to myPers Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk