Last edited:
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
FY-15 ADHSB
- Thread starter HooverPilot
- Start date
I agree.
Deployments are a known part of the job when we take the oath. That makes me wonder when did the TACAIR retention issue increase? Did it get worse when the deployments became longer or has it always been this way? From my understanding, the AF also has retention issue with the fighter pilots. Not comparing Navy vs. AF, but there must be some similarities that makes fighter guys (of both branches) resign in higher numbers.
I think you stated earlier that you are involved in a new survey amongst just VFA guys. That will be interesting to see the results.
Sorry... replace "Millennials" with "Today's LT"
However politically correct you are about it, it's worth offering as part of the exodus problem, so we can have an honest conversation. "Today's LTs" are statistically far more likely to jump from career to career when things don't meet their ideal - I'm not even saying that's bad. That's just how it is... if "Today's LTs" don't like some aspect of their job, they leave for another. Additionally, "Today's LTs" are less likely to say they want a job that was helpful to others or society.
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-102-5-1045.pdf
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ke-20130805_1_millennials-workplace-companies
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...illenials-time-magazine-generation-y/2678441/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/seeing-narcissists-everywhere.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/08/are-raising-generation-deluded-narcissists/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-theyre-special--read-write-barely-study.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/us-college-students-confidence_n_2426858.html
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1416575995
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannem...e-ways-to-prevent-a-human-resource-nightmare/
Me? PC? What a laugh. With that out of the way, if you want to argue that they're more likely to bounce if they don't like things, totally valid. Much more useful than "everyone under this age is a prick." I do agree that in this day and age we as a society are far, far too concerned with making sure no one's delicate feelings get hurt, and it shows in the people starting to enter the workforce. But I also would hope that by the time their commitment is up, at least some of these young aviators are picking up the values of the institution, i.e. that some of this alleged narcissism gets rock-tumbled off by instructors and fleet peers. Naval Air can and should be a wakeup call to he/she with an unearned ego. I also wonder how much of the "sky is falling, narcissists everywhere" talk is simply a result of older people judging younger people who haven't yet been beaten into submission by this thing called "life." Everyone was less mature when they were younger.
Just a couple thoughts I will throw out from the already-gone perspective (in no particular order):
- The command bonus has nothing to do with command, it was to prevent otherwise retirement eligible post-CO commanders from retiring before serving in one of the billets that "has" to have one. The problem used to be that too many aviators thought those jobs weren't worth staying in for, but since ~2006 the problem switched to too many commanders staying in. That is why that bonus went away.
- I think a lot of people are missing the point on FITREPs. FITREPs are for future selection boards, not for evaluations of current performance. The requirement is that COs understand how what they write translates to what the board hears. I think they do satisfy that. Saying that the system is opaque to JOs is an absolutely valid criticism, but that fault lies directly on their chain of command for not teaching them.
- "You just had bad timing," is a reason a lot of COs pass on as a reason for FITREPs that fall below what a member hoped for. Just look at the last command screen board statistics and you can see that more than HALF of DHs leave with a competitive #1 FITREP. Do what you want with those two facts, but to me it makes it seem like a lot of COs don't have the guts to tell people "You just aren't my guy because xxx."
- I've never seen any evidence that the "good guys" leave while the dirt bags stay. If you have it go ahead and post it. But I don't think it exists, and I expect that the ratio is pretty constant in good times and bad (whether in the outside economy, airline hiring, or any other measure of the good times).
- I don't think there is any tragic death of naval aviation culture going on. Life isn't worse because you can't bang the help or drink and drive anymore. But admin BS going up while flight time goes down is not a winning strategy for keeping people in, and the Navy should be concerned about that.
- The Tactics brief in the NHA link posted had a lot of company line filler, but you need to understand what Hersch said about the Blue vs. Red threat regardless of what community you are from (hint: Blue is winning. By a LOT).
- The command bonus has nothing to do with command, it was to prevent otherwise retirement eligible post-CO commanders from retiring before serving in one of the billets that "has" to have one. The problem used to be that too many aviators thought those jobs weren't worth staying in for, but since ~2006 the problem switched to too many commanders staying in. That is why that bonus went away.
- I think a lot of people are missing the point on FITREPs. FITREPs are for future selection boards, not for evaluations of current performance. The requirement is that COs understand how what they write translates to what the board hears. I think they do satisfy that. Saying that the system is opaque to JOs is an absolutely valid criticism, but that fault lies directly on their chain of command for not teaching them.
- "You just had bad timing," is a reason a lot of COs pass on as a reason for FITREPs that fall below what a member hoped for. Just look at the last command screen board statistics and you can see that more than HALF of DHs leave with a competitive #1 FITREP. Do what you want with those two facts, but to me it makes it seem like a lot of COs don't have the guts to tell people "You just aren't my guy because xxx."
- I've never seen any evidence that the "good guys" leave while the dirt bags stay. If you have it go ahead and post it. But I don't think it exists, and I expect that the ratio is pretty constant in good times and bad (whether in the outside economy, airline hiring, or any other measure of the good times).
- I don't think there is any tragic death of naval aviation culture going on. Life isn't worse because you can't bang the help or drink and drive anymore. But admin BS going up while flight time goes down is not a winning strategy for keeping people in, and the Navy should be concerned about that.
- The Tactics brief in the NHA link posted had a lot of company line filler, but you need to understand what Hersch said about the Blue vs. Red threat regardless of what community you are from (hint: Blue is winning. By a LOT).
I took CDR Snodgrass's survey and I wish I had thrown these next few sentences in there. What I didn't (or couldn't) really put my finger on until just recently about the current LT-age generation with respect to jobs is the tendency for civilians in business to jump from job to job. My experiences are anecdotal and has a sample size of about 5-10 of my friends but their take on jobs is that they will stay in one for a few years and then move on to another position. They rely on their personal 401k/IRA/investments for a retirement. I can't find it now but there is apparently a decently respectable survey that says something like the longer someone stays at a company the less earning power they have per year (senior executives notwithstanding), so they jump around to basically keep the same earning power their whole life. It is very possible that this mindset could be playing a part in the apparent exodus.
This next part is purely conjectural on my part, but contrast that mindset with the mindset of about 30-40 years ago where people were more apt to commit to one job for their entire life, which may have been why guys would sign up with the intent of doing 20 and punching out.
The answer? That's the million dollar question, but in lieu of completely reworking Goldwater-Nicholls, I think the only truly workable solution is giving folks a much larger say in their career path and not forcing everyone on the "Golden Path". A guy wants to be a 20 year O-4 but all he does it fly jets off the carrier and some random ground jobs, so be it, and I would be willing to bet he'd be happier than knowing that he has to make O-5/CO or he's out. That would appear to be even moreso the case with the current generation and their desire to have a much, much greater amount of control on their own life and career.
For the sake of being accurate, helo bubbas actually have much greater options, especially in FTS. Helo guys can go from any helo community into HSC, HSL, HM, HT, VT (props only, but that's primary and advanced props), and VR. VFA can only go VFA, VT (J or P) or VR. That may actually lend itself to the exodus rates as well.
One thing that hasn't been addressed; are there similar exodus rates amongst HSC (CVN) bubbas? When I was old school HS we were actually gone more than our pointy nose airwing brothers because we went to every airwing training event as well as got underway for VT CQs and any other time the boat got underway. It'd be an interesting data point.
Here is my bitch about FITREPs. Handing out #1, 2 EPs because of where a guy wants to go (Top Gun, TPS, etc) or how a guy may turn out in the future is pure bullshit. Guys should be ranked on their performance. Period, dot. If you are a motivated guy or gal that wants to get a patch or go to TPS, then you work your ass off and earn the spot. Same thing goes to CO's giving out the #1 for a guy he thinks will be a performer in the future. If he isn't the number one performer now, then give him or her what they earned. If, in the future the guy starts to perform like the number one guy, then and only then should he get the ticket punch. We had guys in my squadron who everyone knew was the number one guy. However, because he did not want to stay on track (he wanted to teach at Boat School) (not sure why anyone would want to go there but that's another issue) got bumped to a number 4. And before any patch wearers or TPS guys go high and right, I'm not saying you were one of these guys, or maybe you were. Whatever. All I am saying is guys should be ranked on how they perform. Not on where they want to go. Hearing CO's tell a JO "I'm not going to waste a 1 EP on you even though your my number one guy" because of X excuse is just wrong. If they earn it, then give them what they earn.
I took the DH bonus and my MSR date allowed me to punch two months early from my DH tour. A lot depends on when you show up for your DH your, I showed up later than my peers (hung out at the FRS on a preDH tour). Squadron CO had to accept a gap and sign off from PERs was required. This allowed me to meet a training date for a new job. Granted this was for retirement so a couple different hurdles. I was very fortunate to have a front office that went out of their way to help me transition. YMMV.
This arguably could have a cascading effect, at least in theory. With less of a revolving door, the Navy would have to cut its intake of SNAs/SNFOs because those fleet seats would already be full. However, this would theoretically allow the Navy to be pickier about who it takes, upping the quality of the overall force. Granted, realistically, I'm not convinced that we can adequately say who is and is not going to hack it until we throw them in a cockpit. Cascading down from that, you would need less of a training command infrastructure, saving billets and money that way, too.
The problem I see comes from having talked to some Army helo guys about their warrant program. As I understand it, they have a choice of going in as a warrant or an officer, which gives them a similar though not identical choice as to what you describe. The trouble as it was explained to me is that the commissioned officers don't have much of a shot at flying past O-3. And their hours and time in the cockpit pale beside the warrants. So you end up with the guy in charge potentially having credibility issues in relation to the people he's leading.
The Command Bonus take rate (if offered), will be interesting to watch. Lots of "hard" post-command jobs that you will have zero negotiating power over with the retailers. I would imagine we'll know soon either way . . .
I will say this:
As you dip your toe in the deep end of civilian life, you realize something sooner or later. It is about the money.
It is a dirty dirty thing to say that as a naval aviator because there is always the noble, servant piece. In civilian life, you aren't expected to stick around because of pride, honor, or any of that stuff. They expect you to stick around and work hard because when you do, they reward you for it.
For example, I can work an open time 3 day trip in my airline and make an extra $2K. I volunteer to pick that trip up, work 2.5 days, and I get rewarded handsomely for it as a first year FO. A 12 year captain is going to make over double that. You know what I get for volunteering for a trip in the Navy? A pat on the back, a $150 per diem check, and some more divorce points.
I know, the Navy is different and we all do it for different reasons. I will say that everyone's pain threshold is different. Everyone quits eventually and then you get to see the good and bad of what else lies out there. I really enjoyed my time in the Navy, but I knew in my heart of hearts that it was time to move on, made a plan, and am glad I did.
As you dip your toe in the deep end of civilian life, you realize something sooner or later. It is about the money.
It is a dirty dirty thing to say that as a naval aviator because there is always the noble, servant piece. In civilian life, you aren't expected to stick around because of pride, honor, or any of that stuff. They expect you to stick around and work hard because when you do, they reward you for it.
For example, I can work an open time 3 day trip in my airline and make an extra $2K. I volunteer to pick that trip up, work 2.5 days, and I get rewarded handsomely for it as a first year FO. A 12 year captain is going to make over double that. You know what I get for volunteering for a trip in the Navy? A pat on the back, a $150 per diem check, and some more divorce points.
I know, the Navy is different and we all do it for different reasons. I will say that everyone's pain threshold is different. Everyone quits eventually and then you get to see the good and bad of what else lies out there. I really enjoyed my time in the Navy, but I knew in my heart of hearts that it was time to move on, made a plan, and am glad I did.
If true (and I for some reason am having trouble seeing the difference in measuring performance and writing tickets) then this is absolutely the #1 problem because there is nowhere else on earth that something so backward would exist. It's actually insulting, dishonest, and corrupt if this is the case. By the way, great post. Its not your feedback, I'm talking about the system.
Your post got me thinking (not sure exactly sure how, ha) ... I wonder what leverage IAs had on this whole thing. I'll say this... I was scared as hell to even let my detailer know that I existed during the IA insanity from roughly '07 to '10. I mean there was no chance I would even risk getting on that list. As a result of IA -- not community (maybe), it was just me and the XO and I prayed that I was on the XO's protected list. My even possibly objecting to the gamesmanship stopped with trump card of 15 months in Liberia leaving in 2 weeks.
Once upon a time, John Boyd said that during your military career you could either "be somebody" or "do something." Some civilians have done a study on recent West Point grads. Here's the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/the-secret-of-effective-motivation.html
Discuss.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/the-secret-of-effective-motivation.html
Discuss.
So instead of "insulting, dishonest, and corrupt," I'd be more inclined to describe it as opaque, disingenuous, and prone to producing self-fulfilling prophecies. But that may not be much of a comfort to the people whose leadership don't/won't take the time to actually teach them how the system works EARLY in their first tour. I understand why COs don't want to "waste" tickets on people who may not be staying, but as long as members think that FITREPs are for evaluating current performance that will continue to create resentment.
If it were me, I would break the system in half, and take the top and bottom of the current FITREP and call it a "Board Report," or something to that effect, with the trait garbage completely tossed so CO's have more flexibility in maintaining their average, and could just give an overall numerical grade. I'd only leave two lines for the CO to give soft breakouts and recommendations in addition to the stratified rankings, and these reports would be what the boards would use. At the same time, the CO would give a performance report where the member could list all accomplishments, awards, quals, whatever. These would not be allowed at Boards, so that COs could actually give honest feedback about where the members need to improve. This would provide a "safe" means to give honest feedback, while taking what we do now and putting it out in the open, which I think would go a long way towards building trust in the system.