-
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
Possible 44% reduction in student SNAs ans SNFOs?
- Thread starter scubasteve38
- Start date
Well, the actual wording is "Reduce throughput of new pilots/flight officers in flight training 44%," could that just mean making pilots wait longer, like longer delays to class up for API for example? If not, I wonder what criteria they would use to determine how to cull the herd.
WEGL12
VT-28
I would think it means selecting fewer SNA/SNFO applications to decrease the volume going through flight school. Making students wait longer to class up is a waste of money in my opinion because you are basically paying people to just sit on their hands and wait. But if they want to cut the total number of people going through the pipeline they will just raise the minimum scores to continue training. It's been done before, not to long ago I believe. But in my opinion that's wasting money as well because those that don't get through the pipeline more than likely are told to get out the Navy. So all the money spent to train these officers was wasted especially NROTC, Academy,and BDCP guys because they may have over 60k invested in each person. But when it comes to spending cuts and drawdowns they normally pick the option that makes the least economical sense. Just my .02
Maybe, but I think the fact that it says "reduce throughput of new pilots" means that they're talking about people already in the flight training program. But can't say for sure.
Well yes, but delaying deployments does the same thing, and they're proposing that, too. This game of chicken currently going on in Congress seems to be causing (or forcing) the Navy to adopt a "kick the can down the road" attitude towards their budget - and it'll all wind up costing more in the long run because of it.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
When other issues necessitated the reduction of those going to certain designators the ones that were pushed were those not in BDCP, so basically if you were selected but not being paid the OCS date was moved to TBD and then you wait.
Salaries are protected by the seuqestration while training funds aren't, different pots of money. The way the military budget is run and the restrictions placed upon it, it actually makes the most sense.
WEGL12
VT-28
Didn't think about different budgets for salaries and training. So I can see where that makes more sense as a option. Still don't see how it is cost effective/saving money if they decided to cut people actually in the training pipeline. I guess they save some money because they don't complete flight training but at the same time all the money invested in each person up to that point is a loss. The way I see it, this is just another reason to put the required time/effort in flight school then it's just a non issue.
WEGL12
VT-28
I agree, several of the options presented in that report will save money only in the short term. Delaying certain maintenance and upgrades will result in massive spending several years down the road. Only other option is don't perform the required maintenance and then the service life is cut short of whatever component it may be. Really can't win in this situation.
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
Sunk cost. Also: lurk more, talk less.
^^^^First, what he said. You guys are gonna give yourselves the squirts worrying about this. Nothing you can do except show up when they tell you and unbox "suck".
Yeah, cause that's never happened before...
Yeah, cause that's never happened before...
Not necessarily true. Once upon a time they thinned out the SNA and SNFO size by handing out colored cards to everyone in the VTs. All those with a certain color were dropped regardless of grades or where they were in the pipeline.Don't suck and you won't have to worry about it.
