Warbird Information Exchange

This whole process stinks like politics, both companies aside. For the sake of Randy and his coworkers, I want to see the tanker situation resolved. But, I don't want the procurement process to have problems all up and down the chain- it sounds like it does here. It contributes to a system full of waste. I saw waste all through the system when I was in- it stinks, costs money, and ultimately doesn't put the best gun in the hand of the gunfighter. It's funny that this is about gas, because I remember back right after I got out when they forgot to re-appropriate some funding for Reserve Component fuel, and friends of mine who were still in chipped in to put gas in a deuce and a half so they could go to the range.

What is wrong with doing the 767 option, if that is a right-now, supportable platform with field performance which meets needs?

You know, I remember a time when we as a nation struggled to do the best for our soldiers. This, and other shenanigans of present administration (congress and POTUS) are just shameful.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this last paragraph/segment. First, yes what Congress has been doing by constantly delaying and ever earmarking the appropriations for the military is atrocious, but then what do you expect from a congress controlled by the party that has allied itself with the peacenicks?

As for the POTUS, I've not seen anything from the elected and appointed officials in the Executive Branch since this administration started that wasn't aimed directly at doing everything they could for the troops. The problem lies within the "careerists" within the various departments that like to think that they control the government and work for a paycheck and not the taxpayers who fund that paycheck. Many of these people are also allied with the party referenced in the first paragraph. As a result, instead of a solidified Executive branch where the various departments under it are working FOR the POTUS, in many cases the branches are working against the POTUS and that is what's causing most of the problems we see from that side.

Both parties are earmarking. Both parties are pushing crappy legislation that is making lawmaking look slower than maple syrup extraction.



So get rid of them. Have a RIF and dispose of who you want to. I worked for DOD for 10 years. You can only blame problems on the rank and file so long before the REAL rank and file (the voters) figure out that their leadership is the problem. I agree that there are selected careerists in the executive branch, and that some of them should go. They are, however usually controlled by politically appointed directors/bureau chiefs. But you can't blame problems on them when you the POTUS and his appointees set the policies which GS employees are instructed to follow, and when you've been the leader since 2001. 28% approval rating caused by obstructionist career government employees? I don't think so... Was it one of those evil career employees that told GWB that he could find Osama in the country of Iraq, which lies between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Is a GS-13 somewhere making the decision that people can stand their fifth tour? Doubt it...

I just saw that there was a 3.5% raise for the military, retroactive to Jan 1 2008. Who signed that one into effect, and why is an E-3 still making less than he would make in a retail store? Who makes the request for reauthorization? Who shepherds it through congress? And why is the military, which is putting itself so much on the line, not getting at least a COLA plus-up for the larger inflation rate expected this year? I know it's not just the executive branch doing this. But if I was GWB, and worried about my legacy, I'd make darn sure that the last thing I did when I left office was to sign a bill raising military pay rates up much higher than what they are right now.

Yeah, pay rates are a long way from EADS/Boeing contracts. But I think they are a pretty strong basic indicator of how your leadership looks at the cutting edge of military technology- it's more about the politics than it is about getting the right thing to the troops. They would rather have a pi$$ing match between the GAO and DAA than really get stuff out there. I'm sorry for guys like Randy...

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

And yet you ignore the basics -

1) The argument only works if it's objective (i.e. the Osama reference, especially in the face of the massive amounts of transcripts and archived footage of his multiple speeches and those of his now detractors on the subject).

2) Try to fire a GS. They have the most powerful union in the United States. As much as Bush has tried to break their strangle hold, it still takes at least 5 years to get someone fired even if it's for a REALLY GOOD reason. Now, try cleaning out entire departments where in many cases the careerists have more power than their "politically appointed" bosses due to that union.

3) 28% approval rating is because of the US Voter's short attention span and dependency on the nightly news agencies. They believe what they see on TV and when they're told over and over and over and over and over (need I go on) that the war is lost and it can't be won, are you surprised that people think he's not doing a good job? Have you ever considered that if instead of lying to the nation about what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and running the WHOLE truth and not trying to make those in the military who say they want to go back and they think they're doing the right thing look like mind-numbed automatons, maybe public opinion would be higher. Then again, why should he care? His approval rating is still higher than that of Congress's, which is at 17%.

4) Yes, 3.5% isn't great, but it's a raise. Something they didn't get under 8 years of the previous administration. It's better than the raise I got this year, and that was contractually specified. It's better than the raise some of my coworkers in another bargaining group got. It's better than most airline and air transportation pilots got. So yes, he cares more about the troops than the other party does. Oh, but that excludes all the other benefits (free or nearly free healthcare for his entire family, allowances for many items, housing on base if you want it and an allowance if you don't) that you get while on duty and the hazard & deployment pay you get when not at home. Yeah, the base pay sucks, but you know what, my buddy who just got out of the AF as an enlisted was taking home more in last year than I did at $16.30/hr. He now has a job with the FAA that's paying him quite a bit above me. So do I feel sorry for him? No. He did exactly what he should have. He had an assignment that was dead-end, got out at the end of his 8, and got a great job in the government that will keep him employed and making well over $100k when he retires in 25 or so years with a full government pension. He served in Iraq and while not a front-line combat troop, he was at Balad and came under attack more than once.

So, want to try that one again?

A part of politics, but all companies inclusive. If you look at election campaign donations, you soon realise
often corporations hedge their bet and donate to both parties. Regardless of who wins..Monday morning the donor will knocking at the whore-door..."I wanna be Secretary of ----- ------"

This cycle IS status quo. We need to stop it! As I've said before, under Clinton the military suffered from blind
neglect..under Duhbya, overt stupidity in their deployment and use. I was raised in the military culture and I'm VERY concerned for our soldiers safety and needs. No more BS...


FF, I'd say a level playing field..but if CAPFlyer can leave the politics behind, he could maybe respond to your question???

What's wrong with the Pentagon? Check the subjects on right-side for Northrop and others..
www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11780

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

1) What are you talking about?

2)Which unions are you talking about? Unions don't cover GS above GS9. I worked for DOD. If you actually knew some of the union people who represent the DOD people, you would definitely change your mind about AFGE, etc. Our rep got caught getting a "service call" from one of the people he represented, was drunk half the time, and wore more gold chains than Mr. T. He didn't represent us when we had problems. Similar sections to our line of work that we sampled around the country had similar problems. It took me several years to resolve pay issues with documentation. BTW, during my tenure, they converted most of the GS jobs to term employment, which meant they could get rid of you at any time.

3) The whole truth? I doubt that we have the whole truth. If you want to say everything is going okay in the Iraq/Afghanistan war, you can gather enough information to do so. If you want to be critiical of it, there is enough information to do the same. Most of America and the world are somewhere in between. Again, we need leadership to move us forward. I don't think people are too doubtful of all the facts regarding the Iraqi casualties in the war, from dead to wounded to displaced persons. We mostly ignore those. I don't consider most of the reporting to be balanced at all. But there is plenty there to allow anybody to form any opinion, just like here on WIX. As for approval ratings, the whole leadership tree needs shaking up.

4) I looked it up, and as I remembered, we did get raises during the Clinton years. What I also remember is that there were lots of appropriations for quality of life- that is when the contract wiith America was started and military housing was contracted out. BAQ and BAS (housing and food) went up appreciably during that time. As I said, the pay needs to go up, period. It might eliminate that nasty recruiting problem we are having.

As far as getting out, that is exactly what we don't need. We need people to stay in, not get out. More pay= more retention. Better leadership= more people willing to follow this mess to conclusion.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

In response to your #1, a quote from you -



Now, that is one of two things - a backhanded remark that really had no place or a lie. Your choice. Either way, it's unneeded. Either way, it was careerists that violated dozens of CIA protocols when they allowed Plame's husband to go to Niger and then violated even more when they allowed his debrief to be verbal only and not obtain the required written debrief that is specified. It resulted in him being able to change how he presented his "facts" and not tell the whole story to the media resulting in the media frenzy that there was no search for Yellowcake when in fact his report (and his contacts when interviewed again later) said that they had heard that Iraqi representatives were in country to acquire some but that discussions had never started and there was no firm proof they were looking for it (a lot of underlying assumptions and reading between the lines was going on). So, the intelligence the CIA got on Iraq looking for Yellowcake was correct in as far as there were several people within the Niger government who believed that the Iraqis were in country looking for it, something you can't necessarily discount just because 5 years later you can't back it up. That's just one case of many.

As for the union, again, I'm talking the government in general, not just the DoD. The Federal Employee Unions make it hard for any level of GS to get fired. Yes, a lot of the individual reps may be less than mud (too common in most unions anymore unfortunately), but the union as a whole has a bad habit of making management afraid to fire anyone for fear of having to spend years and money fighting that termination no matter how justified.

Point 3 - That is my point. The media throws only the negative, the military tends to only throw the positive, but the amount of exposure is badly skewed towards the former so many (who only watch the news and don't read the paper or look on the internet) don't get the other half of the story to make their own opinion of how it's going. I think it's going better than it was in Japan the same time after the cessation of hostilities, but not as well as it could be.

Point 4 - You are correct. I misspoke on that matter. I went back to the time, and the issue was the pay raises were less than COLA during that period and in addition were much less than the rate of pay increases for civilians, so not only were they increasing less than required to maintain the cost of living increase, the gap between civilian pay and military pay was widening extremely quickly. Bush has changed that somewhat, but the point still is that you can't base military pay on just the check they get that says "pay". You have to include the rest of the benefits they get that are in excess of benefits afforded to a civilian.

1) How did careerists violate CIA protocol by sending an expert on African Affairs to Africa to engage locals about African yellowcake? And is there the possibility that there was some pre-war disinformation going on? Plus, don't you think the Nigerians, hoping for some of the billions of anti-terrorist dollars flowing out of the US may have overstated the case of the yellowcake search by the Iraqi's?

2)As I said, the careerists you talk about are upper level and NOT represented by unions. So what exactly are you talking about?

3) What other half of the story? 2 million displaced Iraqi's, continued unstable government unable to meet outside of the Green Zone? Iranian, Chinese arms and equipment flowing into the country? You're right, we're not hearing the half of it? 9 months from discharge to the start of VA benefits for severely wounded soldier's? Low recruiting numbers? Slow down in promotions in mid-grade NCO and Officers? As I said, there's enough information to know the leadership is failing, maybe not miserably, but still failing. Things like pi$$ing matches between GAO and defense acquisition are just the tip of the iceberg.

4) I got the same speech from when I was a private to staff sergeant. "Your pay doesn't reflect the sum total of your benefits." Military health care is crap. I worked in that system, and I know it well. Ask any retiree or dependent. The standard of care is well below what the civilian world gets. I wouldn't tout that benefit so much when trying to recruit more people. As for actual paycheck, A private first class with under 2 years of experience gets paid $1587 before taxes. I'd say they need a 12% increase this year, 8% next year, plus cost of living allowance. And I'd like to see the leadership quit telling them what a great deal they are getting for putting their family life on hold and their lives on the line. It rings pretty hollow.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Okay, before taxes, he gets $1587. He then gets an additional $1283 (using Basic rates and without a dependent) each month for allowances when he's not deployed. That's $2870/mo pre-tax or about $34,440/year. I make $35,000/year (including overtime) and survive just fine.

Yeah, again, the cash in pocket doesn't seem to be great, but the total compensation package is better than what a lot of people get.

Oh, and I forgot, he can make up to another $625/mo (non-taxable) while on deployment in addition to his normal pay plus a fairly substantial bump in his allowances as well.

Yes, it's not what I would like to pay him, but to say that they're worse off than a guy who's working 2 or more jobs just to make it from paycheck to paycheck is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

BTW, that PFC's making more a year in basic pay than many regional pilots do in their first year, so again, they're not as bad off as you want to portray.

Regional Pilots? Regional pilots don't have to sit through mortar barrages, worry about RPG's, or wear body armor. You make 35K a year? Just to humor me, take a look for some open forums where active duty and reserve people discuss pay issues. If everybody is so okay with the pay situation, why do they complain so much? Why do NCO's spend so much time helping out junior EM's with pay problems? I spent twelve years in, and I don't recall a time, from 1985 to 1997, where I didn't have multiple co-workers and/or junior people with financial problems.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

I call sugar. I got several raises during that period. Clinton era or not, the military usually gets raises whichl like everyone elses, don't really keep up with the cost of living.

And CAP, in the ten years I was in all I ever got was basic pay, unless I was deployed in a combat zone or on jump status. Those are for the very rare few who are forced to live on the economy. Almost no one in an infantry bat (the majority fo the military) gets any of that. In fact the only folks I know who regularly get it are the Coast guard. Again I call sugar.


Say what? You're actually claiming that medical care is a BENEFIT? taht's spin, buddy. Just walk into a clinic and ask them to schedule a vasectomy, or an abortion or to give you an eyeglass prescription that actually works. Ask them to help you deal with trauma induced migraines (can you spell ibuprofen?) Military medical is not a benefit. It is strictly geared towards putting upi back on the line as cost effectively as possible--it makes an HMO look like a sweet deal.


If you're in it for the paycheck, you should go find a job at BK. They pay better.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Honestly MB, my medical plan isn't much better with what they don't cover being a substantially longer list than what they actually do. It is good for the "routine" stuff, but all to often I'm paying out of my pocket for most everything else.

BTW, if you notice, I left off the medical benefit in the "benefits package" anyway. I don't trust any numbers (or levels of service) anyone gives for anything, so I tend to figure that one as a "wash" for 80% of the population who has to deal with a broken medical system (thanks to the government).

MB, as for pay, allowances are for everyone in the service. If you didn't get them, then something was wrong. BTW, if you live on base, you don't see your housing allowance, but you still get the assumed benefit of it. I pay rent, guys on base don't. That's $500/mo that's not going out of their pay that is going out of mine. The point is still the same - there are things in the military that are paid for that aren't in the civilian world. Whether it's great or not isn't the issue.

As MB said - if you're in it for the money there's better paying jobs out there. Had I been able to, I would have served even with the low pay. I know how to survive on $1587/mo. I've survived on less and I still had some money to fly every couple of weeks.



Correct, but an infantryman also doesn't accrue $70K in education loans that he has to pay back just to get that $18K-$20K/year job. While some in the military go into combat, they volunteered and walked into it knowing what might happen. At some point you've gotta make them be accountable for that fact and stop accepting their complaining as fact instead of just that - complaining. There's no such thing as "getting paid enough". What is acceptable for one is not for another. For the number of guys that complain there's at least as many that have no problem with it. At my work, the guys working the trains get paid better than their compatriots at 2 other companies yet they still complain they don't get paid enough. They get a decent medical, railroad retirement (which has much the same rules/benefits as government retirement), and a stable job environment. Some are happy with it, some aren't. It's life, and it's a fact of it - someone will always complain.

Yes, I think that the military should get compensated more than they are, but at the same time, I don't think that we should pay them the exact same as a civilian in a similar skillset unless we're going to cut the allowances and other non-combat benefits that you don't get in the private sector.

Actually it is. Infantrymen live in conditions that would get housing department officials arrested. They recieve mecical care taht would get doctors sued for malpractice. As for your "allowances, and not recieving them, if you'd ever shot rats in your barracks you'd question the morality and decency of claiming taht they are somehow "equal". they are not, and to claim tey are in any way a benefit as opposed to a way to underpay soldiers is just...sugar.

Benefits? I've gone days. DAYS without three hots and a cot and been charged for it anyway. I served because I believed. That I no longer believe is due in a great part to the treatment I receieved--under republicans AND democrats. That I would serve again has absolutely nothing to do with the way I was treated. Sacrifice is sacrifcie and to claim taht there are "benefits" for any but the elite is to demean those who serve. There is no comparison in the civilian world--no amount of pay would ever make taht so. Those asshats at Blackwater aren't soldiers, and the "benefits they recieve are just more of the same to those of us who have worked with tehm while theyw ere being paid four times what we were for less danger or honor. I guess if you were to look at those forums you'd pretty much see what I've been complaining about here, eh? Same old same old. The grunt pays the price of our selfish civilians and we justify it by calling it sacrifice... America has a long and honorable history of do you kiss your mother with that mouth? the troops, why change now?

I agree with yo btw. We should up the pay and dump all the allowances that REMFS recieve. Medical benefits would still be neccessary because of "job injury" (and costs would go down because the REMFS wouldn't eat up as much of it) and we could far more easily pay for rent and food out of our own pckets of it were actually going into our pockets instead of being stolen by civilians and REMFS. Taht extra 1500 a month would go a long way toward feeding my children if I ever SAW it, don't you agree?

As for "paying equitably" how can you judge that? It is pretty easy to sit in your chair with a beer in hand claiming that what we pay our troops is anywhere NEAR decent, that they know what they are getting into, and that's life. It's another to sit in a fighting hole somewhere bad worrying that your wife can't pay the rent or tah your children are going hungry and can't buy clothes for school--something I delt with daily as an NCO. I laoned out most of my paychecks (never saw most of it back) so my troops could feed their families. And that was COMMON. I was not doing anything any of my other buddies weren't doing. When I was a buck private my LT loaned me a 1000K to pay my rent when I got deployed to Panama. And HE borrowed it from his parents. What the do you kiss your mother with that mouth? is THAT? Is THAT how we want to reward the sacrifices of the men and women who are dying for this country? By blowing it off with the claim that "they knew what they were signing up for?" sugar.

Sorry, I've had too much to drink this evening. Not picking on you Cap, just venting. It's been a long life, and I'm feeling sorry for myself and lonely since she packed it in. You fellas take it easy.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

MB - Venting is necessary and cathartic. Go ahead and vent as much as you need. We're all mature enough (well everyone but Jack and Bill) to be able to not take things too personally and recognize when someone's trying to get something off their chest and not making a personal attack.

BTW Jack & Bill - I'm Kidding!

Hey! What about me? No insults in at least a week... Where's the love?

Let's see if I can get you guys started again!

So what does this duscussion have to do with the tanker contract?