The Warrants have arrived

[zab1001]

For the record: I asked more than one person at BUPERS about CWO transition for URLs. To put it politely, I was laughed at. Hard.

 

[bunk22]

Your Flag officers like what they saw in the Army's program and didn't ask for JO's input or opinion. Just get with the program, you just may like it. Besides, you have no choice.

Assuming and which of us NA's and commissioned officers are you telling to get with the program?

Your Flag officers know what's best for Naval Aviation, they're tail hookers aren't they?

I'm going to take this at face value with would lead me right into the no talent ass clown comment. You have little knowledge on this subject. You are not helping yourself here. Take some advice and let it be.

 

[BigIron]

What Bunk means is:

 

[alwyn2nd]

Flying Low

Reasons on going with youth. They are easier to train, in better physical condition with quicker reflexes and can be retained on flying duty for a longer period of time, with consequent reduction of training cost.

The comparison was between prior enlisted personnel vs civilians without military service, not URLs. Without prior service, they can be retained longer on active duty which will be a cost savings. 60% of the Army's student pilots are previously enlisted where the remaining students come from the civilian ranks.

You want to offer career advancement to your quality troops/sailors but you still need quality NCO/CPO personnel as well.

 

[Flying Low]

Flying Low

Reasons on going with youth. They are easier to train, in better physical condition with quicker reflexes and can be retained on flying duty for a longer period of time, with consequent reduction of training cost.

The comparison was between prior enlisted personnel vs civilians without military service, not URLs. Without prior service, they can be retained longer on active duty which will be a cost savings. 60% of the Army's student pilots are previously enlisted where the remaining students come from the civilian ranks.

You want to offer career advancement to your quality troops/sailors but you still need quality NCO/CPO personnel as well.

What constitutes youth? 18? 22? 4 years of college would place an SNA at about 23 years of age. Still pretty young if you ask me. If 60% of the Army's students are prior enlisted then what makes them younger then the current SNA's? There is a lot more to flying then quick reflexes. Correct decision making for one. Really, quick reflexes has very little to do with flying when you are mainly talking about non-strike. You do have to have reflexes, but I have never failed a student because they were not fast enough on the controls. Even an auto should be controlled all the way down.

How are training costs reduced? Are they attending a shorter flight school?

Please explain how they can be retained longer on active duty for a cost savings? Do you mean over 20 years? Are you talking about O-4 compared to CW-4 and the associated costs? Other then base pay and BAH everything else would be the same. Plus the numbers would get smaller as you increase in rank (Number of Officers).

 

[alwyn2nd]

An 0-1 makes $263 less then a W-2 at the start. O's start making more as they move up but health care should all be the same. And with CWO's getting targeted pay raises they will continue to close the gap. Also W-2's receive more than O-2's for BAH. How are Warrants cheaper to make?




What constitutes youth? After 4 years of college the average SNA would be around 23-24. So unless there is going to be a age limit of 25 then a youth argument just doesn't really have a lot of weight. I winged a month before I turned 30. I have known guys younger then me that attrited or just plain sucked. I have also know guys that were my age or older that were great sticks. I wonder what the age is of the youngest Warrant selected for this program. I would guess mid 20's.

Just because you are young does not make you in better physical condition. Quick reflexes are great. But correct quick reflexes are something else. There is a lot more to flying then the monkey skills.

How are training cost reduced with Warrants? Don't they have to attend the same flight school? They receive the same flight pay, same BAS, in most cases more BAH and are constantly getting target pay raises.


Now I will say that I do think this is a good program. I wish it was there when I was enlisted. But I'm just not sure of the real gain that is to be had with this program. I think anybody (well almost anybody) can be taught to fly. I would be willing to be that most applicants for this program in the future will have more then 2 years of college. As that is what it will take to compete.

If you have a civilian join and stays until retirement, that is 20 years of aviation service. If you have a sailor with 6 yrs in service and elects to go to flight school, he/she will only have 14 yrs in the cockpit if they stay unil retirement.
Saving on training cost and developing more aviation experience.

 

[MasterBates]

Alwyn, since your profile is patheically lacking, what is your background and qualifications to be such an expert on this?

You some flag loop trying to sell us on your boss' plan?

Some 14 year old who thinks he knows more about this than us becasue he read it on Wikipedia?

Back your shat up, or SHUT THE FVCK UP!

 

[Flying Low]

If you have a civilian join and stays until retirement, that is 20 years of aviation service. If you have a sailor with 6 yrs in service and elects to go to flight school, he/she will only have 14 yrs in the cockpit if they stay unil retirement.
Saving on training cost and developing more aviation experience.

So a prior enlisted with 6 years of service would be 24 years old (starting at 18). They would be older then someone coming right out of college. What happened to the youth argument?

If they both do 20 years of service then what is the difference? Did you calculate the cost of boot camp, "A" School, PCS money, SRB, etc for the first 6 years while they are enlisted?

I still don't understand how there is a savings on training cost.
A= Prior Enlisted Warrant
B= O-1 with no prior experience
How is A cheaper to train then B? They need the same number of flights, flight pay is the same, fuel is the same.
How is A developing more aviation experience then B? Both started their experience at IFS.

 

[bunk22]

If you have a civilian join and stays until retirement, that is 20 years of aviation service. If you have a sailor with 6 yrs in service and elects to go to flight school, he/she will only have 14 yrs in the cockpit if they stay unil retirement.
Saving on training cost and developing more aviation experience.

How do you save on training cost? Training is training, it costs the same for every aviator. Regardless, have to pay for a 20 year retirement, be it an O-4/5 or WO. Do you have anything that would lead any of us actual naval aviators to believe you know WTF you're talking about? I'm still waiting to hear it. Matter of fact, I look forward to it. I've never heard any wannabe come across with such gusto, such a know it all attitude.

 

[kmac]

If you have a civilian join and stays until retirement, that is 20 years of aviation service. If you have a sailor with 6 yrs in service and elects to go to flight school, he/she will only have 14 yrs in the cockpit if they stay unil retirement.

Initial training in the aviation community would be the same. However... the Navy as a whole would spend a heck of a lot less on the prior enlisted over a 20 year span than the warrant fresh from the civilian world. How is this possible?

Look at the pay chart for an E-1 through E-6 and compare that with a W-1 in the same 6 year period. The cost per person would be a heck of a lot higher if we took civilians straight to the warrant program rather than prior enlisted. You can't take two seperate time frames (14 years of aviation service for the prior enlisted and 20 years from the civilian) and treat them as the same. If you are arguing that both will serve 20 years, then the prior is easily the cheaper.

 

[The Chief]

My prediction will find the program an absolute success for the Navy leadership. They will further make changes.
The Navy should/will make the following changes.
1) Prior enlisted experience/college not required.
2) Minimum age 20 or even 18 and meeting the OCS
requirements other than college.
3) Possibly make a private pilot license a requirement for
the perspective Warrant Officer candidates and start
them at the pay grade of W-1.
4) With the above changes, the Navy will always have
more than enough qualified applicants beating
down the hatches.
Reasons on going with youth. They are easier to train, in better physical condition with quicker reflexes and can be retained on flying duty for a longer period of time, with consequent reduction of training cost.
The Navy will come around to the way of Army thinking on aviation. It just getting started. If you want flying time go Warrant.
It's a start of a new day in Naval Aviation. This program will be successful.

This sounds very familiar. I believe it came from, possibly, Popular Science magazine from couple years back. It was an argument for unmanned vehicles, small deck carriers. I think their proposal was for NCOs or WO for ground (read shipboard) controllers.

I think the forum is being ragged by a 15 yo boy (or girl) repeating from that article. Still searching for it but have not found it - yet.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Flying Low]

This sounds very familiar. I believe it came from, possibly, Popular Science magazine from couple years back. It was an argument for unmanned vehicles, small deck carriers. I think their proposal was for NCOs or WO for ground (read shipboard) controllers.

I think the forum is being ragged by a 15 yo boy (or girl) repeating from that article. Still searching for it but have not found it - yet.

Don't feed the trolls.

I was thinking the same thing. Just a bunch of headlines, no meat.

 

[alwyn2nd]

How do you save on training cost? Training is training, it costs the same for every aviator. Regardless, have to pay for a 20 year retirement, be it an O-4/5 or WO. Do you have anything that would lead any of us actual naval aviators to believe you know WTF you're talking about? I'm still waiting to hear it. Matter of fact, I look forward to it. I've never heard any wannabe come across with such gusto, such a know it all attitude.

The civilian applicant could put in 20 years of flying until retirement where as the pilot with 6 years of enlisted experience could only do 14 years of flying before retirement. You are replacing a pilot every 20 years vs 14 years. Less new pilots required and their primary duty as a Warrant is flying only throughout their career.

Win, win situation for the Navy. More leadership opportunities for the URLs and more flying experience by the Warrants. Just less flying time for the URLs that's all. How much less, time will tell.

 

[kmac]

You are replacing a pilot every 20 years vs 14 years. Less new pilots required and their primary duty as a Warrant is flying only throughout their career.

Wrong, you are replacing pilots every year. And let's look at what really costs the most... labor or fuel. Labor, hands down. The civlian putting on the rank of W-1 will cost more over his initial 6 years than the prior E over the same 6 year period.

PS. I need a troll as a pet.

 

[Beans]

Save yourself, shipmate... or whoever you are

Allwyn, here is a textbook example of the immediate next post you should make on this forum:
Check six was questioned. He spoke up and set the record straight [and gave us lots of aviation-related eye candy]. Now he's got a rep/posts ratio most of us could only hope for.

Or, just ask what pct get jets and get it over with. Your choice.