Lord Ratner

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

I was stumped on the gravity explanation, so I agree that's a cred killer, but not the radio calls. If you've done any flying around Turkey you know they aren't the most honest controllers with their airspace boundaries. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

That is the last thing I expected him to say. It's nice to see the pre-2008 Chris Matthews return, even if only for a minute. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Never seen or heard of it Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Because FAIP is thought of as an alpha tour. Going from FAIP to transient UAV pilot would mean they have zero experience in a normal community on their third tour. Unless they are planning to permanently assign FAIPs to UAVs... Which would be truly brutal. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

We are quite successfully criminalizing human interaction. On the flip side, this shows that SAPR training works in some respects. Teach a bunch of 18 and 19 year olds that uncomfortable, unpleasant, or unwanted interactions are actually "violence" and "assault," and they will believe it. The pendulum is already swinging the other way in the college world, the military should follow soon enough. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Sounds about right. She pretends for a living, why should anything she says make sense? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

What did blunt do? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Are you making a living, middle class wage off of it? If so, good on you. I've always wondered how hard that would be to get into. One of the only downsides to being stationed overseas is the access (and price) to the movies. For what it's worth, your post about the movie lost me with all the parenthesis and "Oscar-nominated" add ins. Expected for an IMDB plot summary, but not a no-shit review from a human. Also, there is no such thing as an astonishing cast, unless they managed to resurrect Ghandi or George Washington to be in it. /unsolicitedfeedback Good on you for getting into that gig. I'm jealous.

What's the new gig?

I was trying to guess what numb nuts was quoting a movie trailer without reading the username. Figured Huggy had just discovered Movie Phone and was trying to impress us with his cinema knowledge. Are spammers really making forum accounts now just to post adverts?