Lord Ratner

Let us know how it goes. I'm scheduled for the beginning of September.

Push promotions O 1-5 down to the wing commander level. Some will get it wrong, but at least those with the big picture can stop doing stupid things (patch wearers as execs) just to satisfy the great faceless promotion board. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Oscar-worthy...

Exactly. They (CC) can order you to stay on base, and you can ignore them and follow the JTR on refusal of govt quarters. They have to pay you the prescribed amount, but your CC can also write you an LOR for article 92.

Except that the last time you were TDY to MacDill, the Spanish still owned Florida.

Think of how many permanent schedulers, planners, training managers, equipment custodians, building custodians, deployment managers, records managers, voting reps, security managers, resource advisors, purchase card holders, and DTS reviewers we could hire for 60k per year...

Pigeons are the pilots you have to throw rocks at to get to fly. Penguins are the pilots that won't fly no matter what you do to them.

I've been carrying two passports (tourist and official) for years now and have yet to have a problem other than remembering which one I used to enter the country... I have the exact opposite experience. No border agent will be confused by someone with an official/diplomatic passport also having a tourist passport. You don't present them both, but having both has never caused a problem for me. Now, there are cases of border agents being very interested in the visas contained within the other passport. If you are going to a country with such concerns, carrying only one is prudent. Not sure if they still do it, but you used to be able to get a second passport if your travel involved Israel and certain Middle Eastern countries, to keep the visas separate. Exactly. Thinking about it a bit more, the real threat would be two civilian passports. The circumstances for having two are very rare, and I can see a border agent getting spun up. But one red and one blue? No issues.

I have the exact opposite experience. No border agent will be confused by someone with an official/diplomatic passport also having a tourist passport. You don't present them both, but having both has never caused a problem for me. Now, there are cases of border agents being very interested in the visas contained within the other passport. If you are going to a country with such concerns, carrying only one is prudent. Not sure if they still do it, but you used to be able to get a second passport if your travel involved Israel and certain Middle Eastern countries, to keep the visas separate.

Here's mine. I searched back a few years, but with the changes to the JTR and long-term per diem, hopefully someone has some recent experience. I'm going OCONUS to CONUS, with a CONUS TDY-enroute. My DEROS is in May, and we are leaving the country on May 31. The class start date for the TDY enroute is 9 June. (Mildenhall - Altus - Fairchild) What the hell am I supposed to do with my wife? Does she get per diem and stay at Altus with me? She can't stay overseas While I'm at the TDY due to DEROS, right? Or is she just expected to go ahead to Fairchild without me? Unsurprisingly the FSS folks have been... ambiguous. Any other warnings/advice based on past experiences with the OCONUS-TDY-CONUS PCS are appreciated. Thanks

Pretty solid, though not so much I'd bet my wings on it. Info is from someone in a very logical position to know it. Not surprising these days. I've been hearing similar stories, though this is the first 100% decline rate I've heard of.

So what's your plan?

UAVs. Those are easier to fly, are often even lower in the UPT class distribution than AWACS and KC-135s to McConnell, and fit the rest of your criteria. As for qualifying my position, I've been a T-6 FAIP, MC-12 MC, Tanker pilot, flown a couple civilian puddle jumper planes, and some seat time in the C-17, A-10, and KC-10 simulators flying patterns. I've also had my three carnival rides in the U-2, which would have gone much better had I done the interview after 500 hours in the -135. So far you've been wrong about Shell 77, obnoxious in your fervor and posting rate, and unwilling to clearly state your flying history, so until those conditions change, I'll go back to lurking. BREAK BREAK I posted in the promotions thread, but it's relevant here. Allegedly, all six school selects at Lakenheath had declined school. Since school is a similar commitment as taking the bonus, this is another bad sign for retention, with the notable difference that these six are ostensibly the top six dudes according to the AF. If the promise of an easier path to O-6 isn't enough to keep them, I doubt an extra 10K will change the tide.

You strike me as either a troll or an idiot, but in any case, having flown a few different planes now, and a few more in their simulators, the tanker (135) is probably the second hardest to land in the AF. I haven't flown a fighter, but I have yet to meet anyone who has flown both fighters and stratotankers and thought the fighter harder to land.

Interesting data point I heard. Apparently all 6 school selects at Lakenheath have declined. Rumor has it a council of the elders was called to figure out how this happened... They must not read BO.net

Wait till you're a two-year captain and do the ACSC online masters program Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I am. Not deployed, just stationed overseas. Others have done it. If your deployed there's even less uncertainty, but the regulation is fairly straight forward.

I assume you're referring to my MC-12 time (were you there when I was? ). I loved what we did there. The direct support to the ground pounders, be it convoy overwatch or more direct support during hostilities, was amazingly rewarding. Way more of a "I'm part of the fight" feel than my time as a FAIP or tanker pilot. But while the individual experience of the MC-12 was very rewarding, I can't say it did much for my (and others') opinion of the overall military effort. I think (purely speculative) that's what we're seeing today. People still believe in the mission of their unit or the MWS, but not in what it is being used for. Maslow's higher needs can't be fulfilled this way, making it harder to have a high-functioning organization. The U.S. chose to have an all volunteer force. That means it has to run it (in many ways) like other voluntary operations. Telling people their opinions and feelings are misguided (or selfish!) is a failure of empathy, and thus a failure of leadership. Say what you will about the conflict between empathy and the "killing people and breaking their stuff" military badass mindset, it matters. Especially when fewer people think their integrity, service, excellence, and lives are being spent on worthwhile endeavors, the bond between leader and follower is even more critical.

I'm using the term (senior officer, not senior leadership as you said) loosely. Sq command is the first level of meaningful organizational leadership.

Perhaps it is the organization that has lost its way. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people on this board and the AF believe what you said, that putting the mission first is also protecting your family. But that implies "the mission" involves a threat to our country and our way of life. The very existence of this conversation is evidence that some members doubt that connection. Nowhere else in America do leaders blame groups of disenfranchised employees for their collective disgruntlement. It violates nearly every theory of organizational leadership, many of which the AF teaches. AF leaders have the burden of their choices potentially leading to death, not an easy or remotely common consideration for a leader to accept. Unfortunately there is almost no accountability for the less dramatic organizational leadership decisions made everyday by senior officers (O-5 and above) who-- by the very nature of our promotions and assignments system-- have no experience in the position they are in. Manning problems are never the peons' fault.

Mostly anecdotal. VSP for one. Since then, the people I know who are not taking the bonus or opting out of their next assignment have been the ones with strats and school slots. The guys and gals I know these days who are positive about taking the bonus and making it to retirement no matter what are (not all, but mostly) worker bees, at best. Five years ago when I would tell someone the bonus was a raw deal, most would look at me like I was nuts. Now it's rare to talk to someone who is sure about taking it, while passers abound. This is supported by data, at least.

I'm hoping there is some sarcasm in that statement... Not really. If people have been voting with their feet under Welsh, it should continue or accelerate under less empathetic leadership. Those who wish to stay and make rank should have an easier time doing so, especially since those who leave these days seem disproportionately from the higher performers. Quality of life may get worse, but there are plenty of people willing to endure anything for the faintest chance of being a colonel. Fewer people means better odds.

That's not even the half of it. The guy will operate with blinders on with regard to ops tempo and personnel issues, taking the "you should just be happy to be here" approach. The shallowness of his advocation for Airmen will dwarf Nortie's. In short: with the manning issues we are facing and will continue to face, there couldn't be a worse choice in terms of retention. Good news if you want to stay in and get promoted. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I disagree on one point. Not getting promoted does not mean the same thing and reneging on the contract (even if that is the end goal). You don't need to get promoted for the AF to keep you in, they can continue you should they choose. Forcing promotion on someone who doesn't want it is silly, and only an organization that habitually mismanages personnel through stubbornness and inexperience could fail to recognize that. If you don't want people with bright futures sabotaging their careers, ask yourself why the system is making them that way, and fix it. Or don't. The nice thing about the military is that very, very few leaders are ever truly accountable for their organizational management decisions.

18 year olds don't come to these views on their own. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk