Protip: replace "Millennials" with "blacks," "women," or "gays," and see how your argument sounds.
you bring discredit to yourself, your community and your service.
And with these, I'm done with the thread.
Last edited:
Protip: replace "Millennials" with "blacks," "women," or "gays," and see how your argument sounds.
you bring discredit to yourself, your community and your service.
$ A guy can spend a lot of time away from home for O-3/O-4 pay, or he can spend a lot of time away from home for twice that.
For me, if I have to spend 180 days ormore away from home in a given year, its easier to do so in 3-4 day chunks than all at once (consulting, airlines, etc). As much fun as I had on deployment, it was also incredibly challenging because you are literally removed from your normal world for a significant chunk of time. Even with frequent travel, you're touching home base consistently, which is a significant psychological differentiator. Even in the midst of incredibly long work weeks.
Because it's cool to tar millions of people with a character flaw based on when they were born. Do tell how you're worthless to Naval Air if you're born after 1982; I'm sure the vast majority of fleet JOs are waiting with bated breath for this penetrating analysis. Protip: replace "Millennials" with "blacks," "women," or "gays," and see how your argument sounds.
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.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.
Words
Brett,
I think the VFA 1310 world offers more options without completely 'jumping ship.' It can be more of a granulated decision than an in/out, black and white call. A transition to VFA, VFC, VT or VR FTS or SELRES is available. This offers an opportunity to keep doing what you like without a complete exit. Though this may partially explain the VFA/VAQ 1310 vs 1320 numbers, it'd be interesting to compare the reserve opportunities available versus community retention rates. If that comparison could be controlled for average deployment time, average work day and general bad-dealness, that'd be awesome.
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 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.
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 . . .W/r/t the bonuses, both for DH and Command, does anyone ever take DH or CO/XO orders but not the bonus, thus enabling them to punch after that tour?
Just a couple thoughts I will throw out from the already-gone perspective (in no particular order):
- 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.
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.
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.