Plans
Very true, but what if your company requires, not just needs, but actually requires the skill sets of those people that you have promoted? What if you still operate globally (unlike the IDFAF - let's not reignite that flawed comparison)? What if you still do a multitude of different roles where you need experts in all roles? As W E Johns says we have now hit a pivotal point. We may be reducing the numbers of ac we operate, but are making them more capable. Just because we reduce the numbers does not mean that all the rest of the jobs disappear. You still need planning staffs, policy staffs, procurement staffs, airworthiness staffs, HQ staffs - notice the trend here? Just because there is only 10 of a type left rather than 20 or 30 or 100 doesn't mean that the support functions disappear. You may be able to reduce the ranks of those in the support area, you may have a Gp Capt IPTL or reduce it to a Wg Cdr, but you sure aren't going to reduce it WO or Flt Sgt!
We are reducing numbers of senior officers, a point ignored by the poster on 'Goat', its not just 1000 civilian posts that are going when PTC closes there are many military posts going as well.
But the question still has to be asked what do you do with those officers whose post has been disestablished? Remember these personnel have a "contract" to 38/55. Of course we can make them redundant (v expensive) and there are large numbers leaving at 38 or 44 point and large numbers of Wg Cdrs took redundancy in the last rounds and left to join well paid civilian jobs. But until we reach a steady state of 1 command, 2 groups (or is that 3 with Training Group) and 9 or 11 operatonal stations, until we decide what planning and policy work we need to shed, until we decide what HQ functions can be civilianised (for which read screwed up) we cannot just ditch the senior staffs. If we did and then decided that we still need the same planning, joint, policy staffs we would have to promote people faster
thus denuding the frontline of experience, thus increasing the training burden, thus requiring greater recruiting.
Nor can we just ditch frontline aircrew. We are haemorrhaging aircrew at a rate that we cannot replace them. Many are leaving to the airlines because of better pay or maybe the grass is greener or who knows so how do we replace them? We recruit them therefore OASC and IOT still need senior officers, we train them therefore we still need a training system with senior officers, we support them with admin, engineering, supply etc etc therefore we still need senior officers in all of these roles, we protect them so we need senior officers to manage and train the Regt, the police etc. They fly so we need ATC and FC officers and they need senior officers to manage those branches. We remain part of NATO and the EU military so we need senior officers to support and fight for our roles within these overseas (non flying but flying related) posts. We support wider defence diplomacy so we still need DAs in these non flying posts. Etc etc etc.
Senior officer numbers will come down, in time, it just cannot be done over night, and nor should it.
PS I think leaning is complete @rse and it is yet another stupid business idea but what of multi skilling our trades(wo)men? Multiskilling means fewer engineers (but with better employment prospects for when they have had enough of the military). Is multiskilling a bad idea? It seems to work for the airlines!