Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Sen McCain calls for USAF HQ Layoffs

  1. #31
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Pretty sure it's because the E4 is "assumed" to get promoted at their next base so they fill the E5 slot.

    Does the UMD showing rank or skill level?
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    When I was doing manpower, it was at a combined joint HQ. Sandsjames is right - at the joint and/or DoD level, E-4s are considered interchangeable with E-5s. That is, unless the USAF is the only service that does not adhere to the 2 up, one down rule.

    You can spend hours on this page:
    https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp
    Lot's of great manpower data and some of the reports go back to the 1950s (when there were still O-11s on the rolls.
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeKerriii View Post
    E4s used to be NCOs. They still are in the other services. The AF is just a bit weird. that weirdness is why we don;t have WOs also.

    It makes it easier to pretend that shortages don't exist in the UMD if you continue to consider E-4s NCOs
    It's got nothing to do with assuming anyone is going to get promoted...or trying to hide shortages...I can't speak to other services, but, to my knowledge any "1 up, 1 down" "2 up, 1 down" rules are a myth, at least in the AF.

    The UMD does not have people on it...it has positions. It tells what the authorized positions for a unit are and what the funded positions are. Sometimes, you can have authorized positions that are not funded...or you can have them authorized at one "rank" but funded at a lower, etc.

    The UMPR is the document that has the people on it...ideally it would match up to the UMD, but never does, especially stateside. You will make frequent changes to this moving people to more appropriate positions to keep it balanced as best as possible...for example, guy at stateside base gets promoted a couple times since he got there, he'd move positions...it doesn't impact the shop all that much really, but everything makes more sense as the data feeds upstream.

    All that said...for positions and assignments, the Air Force uses the Control AFSC...which is not necessarily your primary AFSC. In the Control AFSC E1-E3 are all 3-levels, doesn't matter if you actually earned your Primary AFSC 5-level or not.
    E4-E5 are 5-levels...again doesn't matter if that E5 has gotten "Upgraded" to 7-level in his PAFSC, for assignment/authorization purposes he/she is a Control 5-level and will remain so until he promotes to E6.
    E6-7 are 7 levels
    E8 is 9 level
    E9s are authorized and assigned on CEM Codes.

    ...unless things have changed in the last 5 years
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,328
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I disagree. The problem isn't that there aren't enough people to manage the programs. The problem is that there are too many unnecessary programs. Making things more efficient is about getting rid of things that aren't critical to job/mission completion, not keeping more people to take care of programs that aren't needed.

    Unfortunately, the Air Force (and many others, I'm sure) are stuck with fewer people AND an abundance of the unneeded programs.
    Along with imo too many different groups who all control or have some input into the same project. Each general/admiral etc has HIS support staff, then those have their support staff, which often have their own support.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeKerriii View Post
    how do you proposes to get military empire builders to give up their empires? That take leaders with brains and guts, Getting rid of half the Generals woud be a good start since they have mutiplied like viagra fed rabbits
    Highly agreed. IMO we have way too many officers of O6 and above level. Especially the Stars!

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Unless you consolidate organizations, then you still need leaders of those organizations, and deputies to those leaders.
    Many f the HQ including numbered AF could simply be abolished since almost all the work is done higher HQs. I served in two of those and it ma was mostly makeweight and a place to hide a few Stars

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Unless you consolidate organizations, then you still need leaders of those organizations, and deputies to those leaders.
    I won't disagree with that statement, but would then bring up the question of WHY do they need to be of such high rank?

    Being at war tends to produce "rank creep", and the war on terror has been no exception. But we've had the whole "do more with less" and "become more efficient" crap shoved down our throats for the past dozen years or so, by the brass. Meanwhile, as the numbers have diminished below them, their numbers have remained the same.....so why haven't they consolidated the organizations, and become more efficient themselves??

    My answer? Because RHIP, and the brass tends to cover for themselves. They won't EVER voluntarily diminish their own numbers, because that would as much as admit what the rest of us already know as a fact...that there's too damn many of them! The good ol' boy network LOVES passing along the high ranking positions to their underlings when they retire. Especially when they realize that they can easily step into a new position as a "civilian mentor" to their ex deputy, who now holds their old position, and rank.

    Sorry, but there's too much narcissism up top, and it's past time for them to feel the cuts, too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •