Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 77

Thread: The controversial plan to slash military housing allowance faces opposition

  1. #31
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    If that is what works for you ... so be it.

    And if I have been in the military since before you enlisted ... am I an old timer as well?
    Yes...you're an old timer as well. If there are kids coming in now that weren't born when you joined then you're old.

    As far as the culture, that's not what works for me, specifically. That is the AF culture. That's the only thing we have for culture. Other than that, we only have a tradition of change.

    I pity the kids now who can't enjoy being hated on by the other services. We used to embrace the fact that we're a joke with fitness and war fighting...now we make up words like "warrior" to describe Airmen.

    It's like when a dad coaches his kid's baseball team and starts his son at pitcher, even though his kid has no place on the field.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    There are only three things about the Air Force that I don't particularly care for:

    1. The PT test
    2. ABUs
    3. The EPRs (though, to be fair, I don't like the Navy's EVAL/FITREP system either)

    Other than that, I actually prefer it here.

    My biggest gripe with the Navy - and I thought this was only happening in the Marine Corps until I was able to step outside of the Navy and look in - is that life in the Navy CAN be so much easier than it is right now, but the problem is that they don't WANT it to be. They add in unnecessary bullshit, because of the belief that "this is the military, so your life is SUPPOSED to be hard. And if your life doesn't suck enough, we'll fix that problem."

    Take all that away, and you get the Air Force.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  3. #33
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    If they don't think it is enough they can go live in the privatized (or on base) housing that IS the same for everyone.
    Not sure which installations you have been stationed at, but I have never seen housing that is the same for everyone. Higher ranks get better housing.

    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Nope you are correct. BAS is supposed to feed the SERVICE member, so why is it as one increases in rank it goes up??
    It doesn't... unless something drastically changed in the 4 years since I retired.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    Not sure which installations you have been stationed at, but I have never seen housing that is the same for everyone. Higher ranks get better housing.
    The ONLY time I have ever seen this was with the new housing at Fort Sam Houston that they built back in 2007 for SNCOs. Last I heard, they opened it up for everyone.

    For single quarters at NSB New London, the CPO barracks were shit, and everyone else got nicer barracks. While I'm not sure if it was the official truth or speculation around the base, I was told that they don't CPOs living in the barracks, so giving them the shit barracks was meant to discourage it.

    It doesn't... unless something drastically changed in the 4 years since I retired.
    It doesn't. Last time I checked, caloric intake requirements don't up with rank. In fact, they go DOWN.

    Explains why officers get less BAS, right? Enlisted do the work, so officers don't need as many calories.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  5. #35
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    Not sure which installations you have been stationed at, but I have never seen housing that is the same for everyone. Higher ranks get better housing.
    Ft. Meade currently has privatized and consolidated (all ranks) housing; it is 'new' built around 2003. There are 2-4 bedroom units which are assigned based on family size but ranks are mixed in the neighborhoods vice the way I had always seen it prior which was separated by rank 'groups' (Junior Enlisted, SNCO, Co Grade Officer, Field Grade Officer). This has neighborhoods with junior enlisted living next door to Field Grade Officers. There are also new (some finished and some being built) apartment style privatized housing for single service members. The current intent is for it to be all ranks (enlisted and officer). The only housing on Ft. Meade which is still separated by ranks is the Cmd Senior Enlisted, O6 & FOGO housing which are some very nice but old ... very old housing on the main part of the base by the garrison HQ, this housing is not privatized; I have been in both styles of housing and while I like the historical aspects of the old senior officer housing, the new housing that an E3 or O4/5 would get put into is IMO nicer (new kitchens, larger bedrooms, central heat & air, open floor plans, wired for modern electrical & wifi etc.), the 4 bedrooms are slightly smaller in square footage than the older housing but that far from makes up for it being nicer.

    About 7 or 8 years ago there was a minor exodus from housing by Field Grade Officers, the private company that runs housing opened these neighborhoods to GS's and military retirees.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #36
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    As far as the culture, that's not what works for me, specifically. That is the AF culture. That's the only thing we have for culture. Other than that, we only have a tradition of change.

    I pity the kids now who can't enjoy being hated on by the other services. We used to embrace the fact that we're a joke with fitness and war fighting...now we make up words like "warrior" to describe Airmen.

    It's like when a dad coaches his kid's baseball team and starts his son at pitcher, even though his kid has no place on the field.
    I more meant if that was what worked for you during your time in (probably closer to when you joined than when you retired); if it didn't I would be baffled why someone would do a 20 year career if they didn't like the culture. From what I observed of USAF culture starting in about 1993 was that it didn't fit my personality or desire for challenge, I got that from the path I chose for myself. It isn't bashing nor hating to recognize that USAF or USMC culture isn't for everyone, nor is the infantry culture within the USMC etc.

    Where I did see friction was a joint deployed environment where the services were mixed and the culture was operationally heavy and the USAF support folks took a while to get up to speed on the OPTEMPO and requirements of an operational deployment. What I saw that was really nice was the quality of life of airmen when I lived on Fairchild AFB, the junior enlisted housing was nicer than any SNCO or junior officer housing I had seen on USN and USMC bases. Prior to 9/11 DoD wide things were much different than after, we had to make a rapid change from a military that was mostly postured to a military that was engaging in sustained combat operations, the reality of that was more work and less fun and some people didn't like the resultant changes (no more MEU deployments that were hopping from liberty port to liberty port in the Mediterranean or Pacific Rim etc.).

    Big picture is we (the military) need what the various services provide (what they bring to the field), how they get their people to provide it is up to them via their service culture and the services use those cultures as a recruiting tool (the highly popular USMC poster "We didn't promise you a rose garden" etc.) -- people will go to one that reflects what they want for their life and even within that, people seek out subcultures or jobs that further reflect what they want.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #37
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    As far as the culture, that's not what works for me, specifically. That is the AF culture. That's the only thing we have for culture. Other than that, we only have a tradition of change.

    I pity the kids now who can't enjoy being hated on by the other services. We used to embrace the fact that we're a joke with fitness and war fighting...now we make up words like "warrior" to describe Airmen.

    It's like when a dad coaches his kid's baseball team and starts his son at pitcher, even though his kid has no place on the field.
    I more meant if that was what worked for you during your time in (probably closer to when you joined than when you retired); if it didn't I would be baffled why someone would do a 20 year career if they didn't like the culture. From what I observed of USAF culture starting in about 1993 was that it didn't fit my personality or desire for challenge, I got that from the path I chose for myself. It isn't bashing nor hating to recognize that USAF or USMC culture isn't for everyone, nor is the infantry culture within the USMC etc.

    Where I did see friction was a joint deployed environment where the services were mixed and the culture was operationally heavy and the USAF support folks took a while to get up to speed on the OPTEMPO and requirements of an operational deployment. What I saw that was really nice was the quality of life of airmen when I lived on Fairchild AFB, the junior enlisted housing was nicer than any SNCO or junior officer housing I had seen on USN and USMC bases. Prior to 9/11 DoD wide things were much different than after, we had to make a rapid change from a military that was mostly postured to a military that was engaging in sustained combat operations, the reality of that was more work and less fun and some people didn't like the resultant changes (no more MEU deployments that were hopping from liberty port to liberty port in the Mediterranean or Pacific Rim etc.).

    Big picture is we (the military) need what the various services provide (what they bring to the field), how they get their people to provide it is up to them via their service culture and the services use those cultures as a recruiting tool (the highly popular USMC poster "We didn't promise you a rose garden" etc.) -- people will go to one that reflects what they want for their life and even within that, people seek out subcultures or jobs that further reflect what they want.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  8. #38
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I more meant if that was what worked for you during your time in (probably closer to when you joined than when you retired); if it didn't I would be baffled why someone would do a 20 year career if they didn't like the culture.
    People work in jobs all the time where they don't like the culture for much more than 20 years. Plus, I liked the culture for the first half.

    From what I observed of USAF culture starting in about 1993 was that it didn't fit my personality or desire for challenge, I got that from the path I chose for myself. It isn't bashing nor hating to recognize that USAF or USMC culture isn't for everyone, nor is the infantry culture within the USMC etc.
    Absolutely...and that's how it should be and is supposed to be. We don't like you because your a jar head and we're not allowed to leave the base on the weekend because your ship is in for a couple days, and you don't like us because we're spoiled. That's a good thing.

    Where I did see friction was a joint deployed environment where the services were mixed and the culture was operationally heavy and the USAF support folks took a while to get up to speed on the OPTEMPO and requirements of an operational deployment.
    Right, because that's not what we were used to. Though I'd put our technicians up against anyone in the world.

    What I saw that was really nice was the quality of life of airmen when I lived on Fairchild AFB, the junior enlisted housing was nicer than any SNCO or junior officer housing I had seen on USN and USMC bases.
    Absolutely.

    Prior to 9/11 DoD wide things were much different than after, we had to make a rapid change from a military that was mostly postured to a military that was engaging in sustained combat operations, the reality of that was more work and less fun and some people didn't like the resultant changes (no more MEU deployments that were hopping from liberty port to liberty port in the Mediterranean or Pacific Rim etc.).
    And this is where the screw-up happened. If the Army needed more Soldiers they should recruit more Soldiers. Don't quickly "train" Air Force finance guys how to operate the 50 on the Hummer and then expect them to perform like an expert.

    Big picture is we (the military) need what the various services provide (what they bring to the field), how they get their people to provide it is up to them via their service culture and the services use those cultures as a recruiting tool (the highly popular USMC poster "We didn't promise you a rose garden" etc.) -- people will go to one that reflects what they want for their life and even within that, people seek out subcultures or jobs that further reflect what they want.
    We agree on this. People don't join the Air Force to be "warriors" and know matter how many times the Command Chief or CMSAF tells us we are "warriors" we just aren't gonna buy it.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    And this is where the screw-up happened. If the Army needed more Soldiers they should recruit more Soldiers. Don't quickly "train" Air Force finance guys how to operate the 50 on the Hummer and then expect them to perform like an expert.
    This part, I never understood. I was in the Navy at the time, and it wasn't just the Air Force that was affected by this. In Navy, there was really no resentment toward the Army for IA taskings. I don't know - because I wasn't Air Force at the time - but I know that, for Navy, IA billets were completely voluntary, and many Sailors were eager to take them in order to go overseas and pocket some extra cash, or have a better guarantee of duty stations at the time. I'm under the impression that ILO wasn't voluntary in the Air Force, and that everyone was "voluntold."
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  10. #40
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    This part, I never understood. I was in the Navy at the time, and it wasn't just the Air Force that was affected by this. In Navy, there was really no resentment toward the Army for IA taskings. I don't know - because I wasn't Air Force at the time - but I know that, for Navy, IA billets were completely voluntary, and many Sailors were eager to take them in order to go overseas and pocket some extra cash, or have a better guarantee of duty stations at the time. I'm under the impression that ILO wasn't voluntary in the Air Force, and that everyone was "voluntold."
    AF was definitely voluntold. I know that the soldiers hated having airmen with them because they ended up babysitting. Seems like it would have cost much less to increase Army numbers and cut AF numbers. Hell, 5 Soldiers could perform better in those situations than 20 Airmen.

Posting Permissions

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