Jump to content

Promotion and PRF Information


Guest e3racing

Recommended Posts

Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC?

Seriously? Because if there are too many pilots on AD and you let some go to the ARC where there are not too many pilots then there would no longer be too many pilots on AD yet you'd still get payback on the training and have the experienced services of those pilots available in both an operational and strategic reserve capacity. You do know that ARC guys are still on the team, right?

Plus, if you believe Chang there is talk of a RIF otherwise known as non-voluntary separation. Always a winner for morale of the force.

Plus, palace chase is free.

If Chang is right about this "glut" of pilots, then it's a win-win.

Good think we are all so educated with advanced degrees from ERAU. It creates great "thinkers" and problem solvers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid, GC, or anyone else in the know...

I have heard some discussion of IDE/SDE in-residence being almost cut all together for non-selects (ie: candidates) this year and additionally for the foreseeable future. Does this check with what others have been hearing? As a CAF guy, if big blue isn't providing advancement opportunities how are they going to expect pilots to stick around past their UPT commitment regardless of the bonus $ being offered? No school usually takes you out of the running for advancement opportunities therefore making you prime for the less than ideal 365's. What have others been hearing across all of the MAJCOM's? Is it true that non-select is going to mean no school in residence?

Merged,

Not my program, but I've been hearing the same thing through the grapevine; a token "1 candidate from CAF, 1 candidate from MAF, 1 candidate from cyber, yadda yadda..."

If you look at the numbers of school designees from 2011 (2012-2013 school year) vs. 2012 (2013-2014 school year), the numbers fell by darn near 200 Majors. That's fairly significant if you're going from 750ish down to 550ish.

If what we're hearing through the rumor mill is correct, it sounds like another reduction may be in order at DEDB 2013, likely due to budget cuts. However, we still have a legal requirement to send all of the selects (top 20% from the Major's board) to school. To date, there has been no reduction in the "select" rate on the O-4 board, so the classes of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 all have a full 20% select rate.

This year's DEDB schedule is: 2001- last look, 2002- second look, 2003- first look. When the Air Force reduces the number of DEDB school designees, but does not reduce the select rate, the segment that gets squeezed is the candidates, IF the rumors are true (again, I have no first hand knowledge that they are true- just conjecture on my part, since you guys love reading conjecture on these threads).

IF all of this is correct...I suspect the following is likely to happen:

- WHEN the class of 2005 finally has their major's board, the school "select" rate will be set at 15%.

- This year and next year, the candidates will be squeezed out

- Starting at the DEDB in 2015 (when the class of 2005 hits their first school look), the "squeeze" will start to abate, and more candidates will be selected for school

- Candidates will have even better shots in 2016 and 2017, as the last of the "20% classes" meet their last looks

Bottom line- IF IF IF all of this is true, yes, the classes of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 will have severely reduced, borderline impossible opportunities for candidates to go to school from this year forward, which means the Air Force would finally, no kidding, no hiding behind glass doors, be selecting nearly ALL of its future Wing Commanders and Brigadier Generals from those four class years....while they were Captains. For all of you "late bloomers" out there, let that sit in your craw for a second.

**A BIT OF GOOD NEWS, HOWEVER**- the Air Force is STILL promoting to Lieutenant Colonel at an 85% clip per class year, and STILL promoting at a 50-55% clip to Colonel. Even if those rates slip by 5% each over the next couple of years, you will still have a significant number of O-5 and O-6 promotees that have NEVER been to school. Soooo...unlike in the past, when 35% of a given class year went to IDE and those made up a significant chunk of your future Colonels, now, you may have 25% or less going to IDE for 2001-2004, opening a wider promotion gap for non-attendees. Just food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid, GC, or anyone else in the know...

I have heard some discussion of IDE/SDE in-residence being almost cut all together for non-selects (ie: candidates) this year and additionally for the foreseeable future. Does this check with what others have been hearing? As a CAF guy, if big blue isn't providing advancement opportunities how are they going to expect pilots to stick around past their UPT commitment regardless of the bonus $ being offered? No school usually takes you out of the running for advancement opportunities therefore making you prime for the less than ideal 365's. What have others been hearing across all of the MAJCOM's? Is it true that non-select is going to mean no school in residence?

This is true for IDE and will be for at least a few years. DTs have met or will soon. Each MAJCOM can send only one candidate and as many selects as they can. Will likely be the same next year. Like GC said, not enough seats for all the selects, so very few candidates will go. More latitude on SDE. This IDE limit will hurt us. The ability to identify candidate talent after the O-4 board is critical to develop future leaders. Not sure how this one will work out. It will mean more commanders, colonels and generals won't have IDE in residence complete. Some may see that as a good thing.

Seriously? Because if there are too many pilots on AD and you let some go to the ARC where there are not too many pilots then there would no longer be too many pilots on AD yet you'd still get payback on the training and have the experienced services of those pilots available in both an operational and strategic reserve capacity. You do know that ARC guys are still on the team, right?

Plus, if you believe Chang there is talk of a RIF otherwise known as non-voluntary separation. Always a winner for morale of the force.

Plus, palace chase is free.

If Chang is right about this "glut" of pilots, then it's a win-win.

Good think we are all so educated with advanced degrees from ERAU. It creates great "thinkers" and problem solvers.

Good point. I don't really understand force management policies and I'm not involved in making them. If we are going to RIF certain year groups in certain AFSCs, it makes perfect sense to approve Palace Chase for them. They should use all force management tools to meet their objectives. Yes, TFI is a good thing. Most career fields I am familiar with are undermanned so I'm not a huge fan of ADSC waivers without overages to support.

Nice ERAU shot, asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this affect candidates eligible for in-res credit as well? Since we still have to compete at the board, is the cut line just higher and even if you are eligible for credit you just have to be that much better? Any thought to just allowing people who are eligible for credit just letting us take it instead of taking away a spot and/or wasting board members time reviewing a 3849?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true for IDE and will be for at least a few years. DTs have met or will soon. Each MAJCOM can send only one candidate and as many selects as they can. Will likely be the same next year. Like GC said, not enough seats for all the selects, so very few candidates will go. More latitude on SDE. This IDE limit will hurt us. The ability to identify candidate talent after the O-4 board is critical to develop future leaders. Not sure how this one will work out. It will mean more commanders, colonels and generals won't have IDE in residence complete. Some may see that as a good thing.

Why is this not being made public via the DT announcement then?

This is a game changer in that a lot of people are about to start caring WAY less if the prospect of getting ahead in the rat race decreases even more. It was no secret that the shiney toys were picked early. This takes it to another level.

You say that the AF will have to change the characteristic of its leadership (less CCs with IDE in-res.). Sorry if I don't share your confidence in the system, but I envision the rich continuing to get richer while upper mgmt continues to dangle the prospect of IDE in front of candidates.

I say that this is a game changer because I get the feeling that I'm not the only person out there with these "goals" should I choose to stay in: do what it takes to make O-5, mainly so that I don't have to worry about non-continuation (that debacle not too long ago rocked the officer corps more than the higher ups think). AAD, right jobs, timely upgrades, IDE via correspondence hoping to get picked up for in-res because that historically all but guarantees O-5. Not closing any doors along the way by balancing that this is pay to play but at the same time trying to help others along the way. Ultimately, should I get picked out of the litter for command, great. But if not, I would be fine with that. The problem though, is if I tell my senior rater that, I am self-identifying that I don't want to be CSAF one day and I am moved down in the rack and stack for those who continue to say what Big Blue wants to hear.

Edited by Champ Kind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 pages of good discussion on the ACP topic. Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC? Serve your time, payback your training, then do whatever you want. Just don't complain when the request for a ADSC waiver (Palace Chase) is disapproved.

Curious if you think that the same training and money that got sunk in a 6 year commitment is equivalent to the training sunk into an 8 or 10 year commitment? Even with inflation taken into account, UPT costs come at an enormous bargain for a 10 year commitment.

Not saying we aren't accountable for what we sign, but if you're going to use a cost argument to disallow Palace Chase, you're off base. The Air Force is coming out on top of that contract. Guys nowadays are doing the same training that guys did 15 years ago, but getting stuck with a much longer commitment, and a much rougher work environment. It feels as if upper level leadership is forgetting where it came from.

My $.02.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 pages of good discussion on the ACP topic. Even if we did have a too many pilots, why would we regularly approve early release from ADSC? Serve your time, payback your training, then do whatever you want. Just don't complain when the request for a ADSC waiver (Palace Chase) is disapproved.

Problem is 41 pages, with nobody yet able to provide a rational, numerically supported rationale for the ACP/ARP. Given that promotions, Palace Chase, ARP, RIF, VSP, SERB and IDE/SDE are part of the same force management continuum, it's natural that there'll be crosstell between the two threads.

- Just as Big Blue uses promotions (timing and rate) to control for surpluses or shortages, so it also uses (or should use) Palace Chase as one of the tools, along with ACP, to control for surpluses/shortages, respectively, in the years between those promo boardsg in

-- Promoted too many to Capt/Maj? "Fix the glitch" by slashing the ARP program/encouraging Palace Chase. Not enough staying in? Shut off Palace Chase/beef up the ARP

- It's totally reasonable for pilots to expect Big Blue leadership to encourage Palace Chase . . . assuming said leadership is rational and if there is in fact a glut of pilots

- Problem is GC seems thus far to be impervious to reason and is incapable/unwilling to provide data to support any of what he's saying

Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, and you purport to be in senior leadership, can you not post a reasonably current "Red Line/Blue Line" chart, showing pilot requirements vs inventory, by year group and pilot community?

- This discussion would make a lot more sense, and (assuming Big Blue is making rational decisions based on those charts) you'd get a whole lot more buy-in from the crowd here

- Problem is you'll have to explain how/why pilot requirements vs. inventory is so screwed up . . . then you'll have a have a really hard time explaining why the "just trust us" mantra you & GC have been pushing has any credibility (after all, it was senior AF leaders that created the "pilot bathtub" in the mid-90s year groups, the VSP debacle and all manner of other tomfoolery)

Is it possible to provide any stats/data that supports the force management policies that Big Blue leadership is enacting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this affect candidates eligible for in-res credit as well? Since we still have to compete at the board, is the cut line just higher and even if you are eligible for credit you just have to be that much better? Any thought to just allowing people who are eligible for credit just letting us take it instead of taking away a spot and/or wasting board members time reviewing a 3849?

No, your record is compared to those going to school in residence. If you rank above the line, you get credit. This does not affect the number of seats or those going to school. It is just a quality check to make sure we give IDE equivalency credit to high quality officers. Most I've seen get approved.

Problem is 41 pages, with nobody yet able to provide a rational, numerically supported rationale for the ACP/ARP. Given that promotions, Palace Chase, ARP, RIF, VSP, SERB and IDE/SDE are part of the same force management continuum, it's natural that there'll be crosstell between the two threads.

- Just as Big Blue uses promotions (timing and rate) to control for surpluses or shortages, so it also uses (or should use) Palace Chase as one of the tools, along with ACP, to control for surpluses/shortages, respectively, in the years between those promo boardsg in

-- Promoted too many to Capt/Maj? "Fix the glitch" by slashing the ARP program/encouraging Palace Chase. Not enough staying in? Shut off Palace Chase/beef up the ARP

- It's totally reasonable for pilots to expect Big Blue leadership to encourage Palace Chase . . . assuming said leadership is rational and if there is in fact a glut of pilots

- Problem is GC seems thus far to be impervious to reason and is incapable/unwilling to provide data to support any of what he's saying

Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, and you purport to be in senior leadership, can you not post a reasonably current "Red Line/Blue Line" chart, showing pilot requirements vs inventory, by year group and pilot community?

- This discussion would make a lot more sense, and (assuming Big Blue is making rational decisions based on those charts) you'd get a whole lot more buy-in from the crowd here

- Problem is you'll have to explain how/why pilot requirements vs. inventory is so screwed up . . . then you'll have a have a really hard time explaining why the "just trust us" mantra you & GC have been pushing has any credibility (after all, it was senior AF leaders that created the "pilot bathtub" in the mid-90s year groups, the VSP debacle and all manner of other tomfoolery)

Is it possible to provide any stats/data that supports the force management policies that Big Blue leadership is enacting?

I don't have the current red line, blue line charts or supporting data, not in my wheelhouse. I can get them and will post if they aren't FOUO. They usually are. AFPC and HAF A1 prefer to officially publish force management policy after it has been approved rather than while it is being developed.

Curious if you think that the same training and money that got sunk in a 6 year commitment is equivalent to the training sunk into an 8 or 10 year commitment? Even with inflation taken into account, UPT costs come at an enormous bargain for a 10 year commitment.

Not saying we aren't accountable for what we sign, but if you're going to use a cost argument to disallow Palace Chase, you're off base. The Air Force is coming out on top of that contract. Guys nowadays are doing the same training that guys did 15 years ago, but getting stuck with a much longer commitment, and a much rougher work environment. It feels as if upper level leadership is forgetting where it came from.

My $.02.

I'd say the value of the training and experience goes up when the demand is high and the supply is low. I should have made a value argument rather than a cost argument. An IP/EP with 7 years of experience is valuable. We protect that value with ADSC and retention bonuses. When low demand or high supply put the force management machine out of synch, they adjust. I'm not A1 and have very little to do with force management policies. I do recommend approval and disapproval requests for early separation and needs of the AF and unit are always considered with need of the individual. I think AFPC has been disapproving most Palace Chase requests, even the several I recommended they approve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**A BIT OF GOOD NEWS, HOWEVER**- the Air Force is STILL promoting to Lieutenant Colonel at an 85% clip per class year, and STILL promoting at a 50-55% clip to Colonel. Even if those rates slip by 5% each over the next couple of years, you will still have a significant number of O-5 and O-6 promotees that have NEVER been to school. Soooo...unlike in the past, when 35% of a given class year went to IDE and those made up a significant chunk of your future Colonels, now, you may have 25% or less going to IDE for 2001-2004, opening a wider promotion gap for non-attendees. Just food for thought.

This is good news, but tell me again how this fixes the "glut" of officers in the 16-20 years of service groups? The numbers of officers per year group for those already promoted to Major has been increasing since the 1997 year group...if you keep the promotion rates the same for increasing numbers of eligible offers, how do you expect the "glut" to decrease? You are actually adding to the "glut" every year the eligibles increase yet the promotion rate stays the same. Also, are these promotion rates based on actual O-4 and O-5 positions expecting to become available or are we just arbitrarily saying 85% is the magic number regardless of class size? Please help me understand this magic math our mapower professionals are using.

Edit: To remove thread Hijack...moved to appropriate thread.

Edited by BitteEinBit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid, is the Air Force better or worse today than when you entered it? Serious question.

Not sure what you mean. It was probably more fun being a Capt flying the line in the 90s than today. Training TDYs, few deployments (didn't do N/S Watch). Post 9/11, it all changed. Multiple command tours in Iraq and Afghanistan were much more rewarding than training.

Better off? Probably not. We failed to take advantage of the enormous amount of money given to us since 9/11. Now we are out of money with few new weapon systems to show for it. We pay contractors to fix and fly airplanes. What an embarrassment.

Our combat experience is high and we are very good at killing people, moving things, finding people and building bases. Probably not as good as we should be at the high end conflict. Grounding our force because we are out of money is about as bad as it gets. Future cuts will hurt more. 12 years of conflict has taken a toll and we are hurting in a lot of areas. Morale is low. Some people are fed up and bitter. I don't have the answers, I've been at the tactical level for most of my career. Looking forward to tackling these big challenges though. Somebody has to do it.

Edited to replace people with contractors for clarity

Edited by Liquid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our combat experience is high and we are very good at killing people, moving things, finding people and building bases. Probably not as good as we should be at the high end conflict. Grounding our force because we are out of money is about as bad as it gets. Future cuts will hurt more. 12 years of conflict has taken a toll and we are hurting in a lot of areas. Morale is low. Some people are fed up and bitter. I don't have the answers, I've been at the tactical level for most of my career. Looking forward to tackling these big challenges though. Somebody has to do it.

Don't screw it up, please. The sport-bitching from the line pilots (ok, you too, Navs) aside, we're counting on you and your multi-star bros. Morale doesn't have to be low, there are low-hanging fruit options available to make it better (uniform reg idiocy, pretend online masters, sos practice bleeding...I'm looking at you).

Btw...where's that "vector" that Gen Welsh said was coming soon 5 months ago? I remember getting an email every month from him with his take on what's going on for a few months after he took over, since then I haven't heard anything from him other than watching him and the other service chiefs get dressed down by congress. Come back, lead us. We need you. Beside the other stuff I mentioned, I think morale will improve when we have senior leadership we can believe in and trust actually care about us (proven by actions, not words). I don't expect that I'll feel like the most important cog in the machine, but I shouldn't feel like an afterthought or just the 480/800 captain on some AFPC metric spreadsheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid, from reading your posts, I think you have good intentions. I just think you are so out of touch that you are more of the problem than the solution.

I know several well qualified pilots leaving a $100k+ AF flying job for $25k regional job in hopes of making it to a major one day. That says something. And it's not good.

Today's Air Force is your Air Force. Own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing candidates from the IDE process is going to have very bad second and third order effects on the moral and motivation of a majority of the officer force. At one point, your O-4 promotion list and your IDE select list were separated in time because of how depressed people were at getting promoted, but missing out on school. Removing the carrot from 85% of your officer force is sending one hell of a message. If we do this, leaders need to be upfront with people. What you do in years 3 to 9 set your ceiling on how far you can progress in the AF.

I know Big Blue has a problem with SDE candidates coasting. Decisions like this will only make this more prevalent and extend down into your IDE ranks. By slotting us all in our places at the 8 year mark, you remove an important incentive in bettering ourselves and the organizations we work for. The appeals to the core values and "bloom where you're planted" speeches are going to ring hollow when you remove merit from equation after your Major's board. Right now, all of the mentoring and force development is focused around the 15% select, or on how to achieve that 5% candidate slot. Throw the other 85% a bone here, and lay out what we can and can't do.

And yes, I understand the counter argument. Not everyone is going to be CSAF. 15% go to IDE, and 85% promote to O-5 and there will be opportunities for everyone. But what kinda of dynamic are you asking for when you run the two track system in earnest. You are removing an incentive to not clock watch to 20 years. What positive outcome is trying to be achieved here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have always been pilots who leave for the airlines. Not sure it says anything other than not everyone wants to make a career out of it. Not sure there is any way to make everyone happy. What am I so out of touch about? Promotion rates, AAD/PME, the upcoming mass exodus, retention? Seriously, what are senior leaders missing on their high horses with their aristocratic beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean. It was probably more fun being a Capt flying the line in the 90s than today. Training TDYs, few deployments (didn't do N/S Watch). Post 9/11, it all changed. Multiple command tours in Iraq and Afghanistan were much more rewarding than training.

Better off? Probably not. We failed to take advantage of the enormous amount of money given to us since 9/11. Now we are out of money with few new weapon systems to show for it. We pay people to fix and fly airplanes. What an embarrassment.

Our combat experience is high and we are very good at killing people, moving things, finding people and building bases. Probably not as good as we should be at the high end conflict. Grounding our force because we are out of money is about as bad as it gets. Future cuts will hurt more. 12 years of conflict has taken a toll and we are hurting in a lot of areas. Morale is low. Some people are fed up and bitter. I don't have the answers, I've been at the tactical level for most of my career. Looking forward to tackling these big challenges though. Somebody has to do it.

Thank you. I believe you provided the background guys have been waiting on. Helps me understand your perspective and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone is going to be CSAF. 15% go to IDE, and 85% promote to O-5 and there will be opportunities for everyone. But what kinda of dynamic are you asking for when you run the two track system in earnest. You are removing an incentive to not clock watch to 20 years. What positive outcome is trying to be achieved here?

First of all, I don't believe for a second that the Lt Col promotion opportunity will remain at 85% over the next few years...but that is a great carrot to put out there for those O-6 hopefulls to stay competetive. Pay attention to the wording Liquid used...

While reducing IDE slots saves money, it slightly fixes the playing field to allow more non-res IDE graduates to compete well on those future promotion boards that will have reduced promotion opportunities. It makes they guy who may have been in the bottom 20% of IDE selects have to rely more on actual job performance and less on a guaranteed IDE slot because they worked for a 3-button.

I actually like the idea....especially since we currently make the determination of who goes to IDE in-res at the Capt level...up to 4 years before a "select" actually goes to school. Have we really seen REAL future leadership potential at that point or are we just sayin "this guy finished his Masters as a Lt..he'll be a great leader!" Maybe we should change the way we "look" at IDE candidates all together so that we consider their last few OPRs as an actual FGO prior to an IDE class start date instead of making a "legally binding" decision while the candidate is still a Capt, that essentially guarantees an O-5 promotion as long as they graduate (except for that 1 or 2 AAD/In-Res grad who seems to be non-selected for promotion every year...weird).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we really seen REAL future leadership potential at that point or are we just sayin "this guy finished his Masters as a Lt..he'll be a great leader!" Maybe we should change the way we "look" at IDE candidates all together so that we consider their last few OPRs as an actual FGO prior to an IDE class start date instead of making a "legally binding" decision while the candidate is still a Capt, that essentially guarantees an O-5 promotion as long as they graduate (except for that 1 or 2 AAD/In-Res grad who seems to be non-selected for promotion every year...weird).

I believe what we are actually saying is, "This guy applied himself for FIVE WHOLE WEEKS in order to get SOS DG!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean. It was probably more fun being a Capt flying the line in the 90s than today. Training TDYs, few deployments (didn't do N/S Watch). Post 9/11, it all changed. Multiple command tours in Iraq and Afghanistan were much more rewarding than training.

Better off? Probably not. We failed to take advantage of the enormous amount of money given to us since 9/11. Now we are out of money with few new weapon systems to show for it. We pay people to fix and fly airplanes. What an embarrassment.

Our combat experience is high and we are very good at killing people, moving things, finding people and building bases. Probably not as good as we should be at the high end conflict. Grounding our force because we are out of money is about as bad as it gets. Future cuts will hurt more. 12 years of conflict has taken a toll and we are hurting in a lot of areas. Morale is low. Some people are fed up and bitter. I don't have the answers, I've been at the tactical level for most of my career. Looking forward to tackling these big challenges though. Somebody has to do it.

Yup.

Vetter, solid question. Liquid, solid answer, thanks for the honesty. Acknowledging that we have some challenges ahead is the first step to solving them. I'm seriously tired of hearing that the Air Force shits roses, cuz it just ain't true. Where do we go from here? I dunno, but maybe once we get past all the mudslinging we can actually figure out the most sensible path forward--maybe. I seriously hope that you can bring some common sense into the mix, because I haven't seen a lot of it lately. Believe it or not, this forum offers great insight into the status of the operational force, despite its propensity for bellicosity. I hope you are able to filter it and generate some solid input for the special Ed kids up on the hill, just saying.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, what are senior leaders missing on their high horses with their aristocratic beliefs?

They are missing WHY dudes are disgruntled.

I've been around a long time, as you have. There have certainly been boom and bust cycles for morale. This one is far different than what I think can fairly be called the last down cycle for pilots in the mid to late 90s.

Young pups hear jack/shit about mission focus anymore. The mission is what motivates them. It's why they are here. But they hardly hear a peep about it from their leadership. That's the number one reason. Act like what they dedicate themselves to is worth your attention.

All they hear about from the cake eaters is stuff like you yourself (and guys like old major chang) has said--get you masters or you clearly don't care. There are no bad assignments. You should get down on your knees every day and thank mother air force for all she has given you. Service before self after all.

These fuckers have known nothing but war. They have never, ever known any semblance of stability or predicability in their whole careers. They weren't around in the good old days where we had fun. When we were captains, our career paths were stable, our deployments predictable, our promotion process was rational, there was no such thing as a 179 or God forbid a 365 other than a few remotes to Korea. We didn't face down UAV assignments. We didn't face constant rumors (and realities) of a RIF. There was a mission focus. Leaders seemingly cared that their CGOs were good in the jet. That's all that mattered to my early commanders. It's how they stratted CGOs for the most part. I swear to God I never heard a single word from a leader about a masters degree until I was a major. Not one word. Now guys are dirtbags if they haven't started one as a lieutenant. Education is king, the only problem is that no one seems to care what you study, how we'll you do or what diploma mill you go to. After all, it makes great "thinkers" yet no one seems to be allowed to think for themselves. It's party line or you're a troublemaker. See problems? Don't point them out and offer solutions. That's whining. Dudes are tired of that bullshit.

So what are the "aristocrats" missing?

1) acknowledge that young pups in the AF have been run ragged. I mean really acknowledge that, not just a token half-hearted comment here or there.

2) acknowledge that there are bad deals and lose the "suck it up" and "service before self" lectures. No one respects that bullshit. You can't polish a turd.

3) Masters degree does not equal dedication or leadership potential. Stop saying that it does. Masters is required. Got it. But when it goes beyond being a yes/no at the board to being used for strats and jobs, then it's out of fucking control. The AF has absolutely lost its mind in this regard. Job performance and leadership potential should be king. They are not.

4). acknowledge that these dudes face an uncertain future with regards to promotion, assignments and RIFs unlike we ever did and it stresses them out and wears at their morale. Don't even dare compare it to uncertainties you had in your early career. You and I both know that it's not even close.

I'm tired of typing now. But that's a start.

  • Upvote 30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
  • M2 unlocked this topic

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...