Hmmm.
 

Are you kidding?! With the amount of responsibilities involved you would probably have to pay him/her a substantial six figure sum. Discounting the years of training, I think a Grp Capts salary comes in a bit below that!
BV

BV

Sad to say but you've just given our resident shapeshifting troll a bite. :ugh:

How's about we all agree to ignore him?

You mean AOC-in-C of No.1 Group is a Harrier mate? What kind of sick perversion is that? Should we suffer our wives and servants to witness displays of rampant and unabashed vectored-thrust flying while decent, God fearing Jag drivers are passed over again and are forced to wander the mean streets of Norwich wondering where their next flying posting is coming from?

If I had one, I’d resign my commission in disgust

Bugg3r.
 

It wasn't a bite, but you're right, it did come across a bit like that. I shall have to watch what I say.
Lets not be too harsh though. I bet his mother still loves him.
But not as much as we all love his mother!
BV:}

The problem isn't that we have pilots running the RAF - I hate to think what moronic ideas adminners would come up with without some form of restraint - the ONE catalyst to so many other problems is that few officers on their way to greatness stay in a job more than about 2 years, so their decision making is often accordingly short-term and, dare I say, headline-grabbing for promotion.

If your boss is a w@nker that can be a good thing because you won't have to put up with him for as long, but on the down side you will tend to inherit the consequences of said short-term thinking for a long time after their departure. The theory is that by changing jobs many times an officer comes out more well-rounded; unfortunately this pays scant regard to the concept of '...master of none'.

But then why bother being good at anything if you're going on to command other people doing it ? Why does it matter if you're in a job perhaps developing policy for it , based on your fleeting knowledge of the subject. Fortunately there are safeguards in place for your limited knowledge on a subject - your subordinates - who sometimes have a whole two years experience in a subject and are less than willing to say 'I don't know' to their boss. Oddly, this rarely passes their lips, so the baton of inexperience is passed on, resulting in many of the states we find ourselves. Until we can communicate properly within the organisation all bets are off for progress.

After 85 years in business it doesn't take a captain of industry to see our core problems - we keep demonstrating our lack of ability to learn every time we do something 'new'; but we're also missing a trick if we think a certain rank needs to do a job. In many management jobs it doesn't matter that I am a LAC, Sgt or Sqn Ldr - time builds experience, not rank or flying ability.

Actually I believe that aircrew lost control of the RAF when RAF Telephone Directories were changed to alphabetical order rather than the traditional and far more effective:

Squadrons, Ops Wing, Eng Wing, Admin Wing

;) :p

Weren't a lot of the major airlines that failed over the last number of years (PanAm, TWA etc) run by pilots? There are a few airlines facing financial difficulties right now, that are also run by pilots. Whereas SleezyJet, SouthWest, and a few others that are run by managers and accountants, are doing just fine.

Personally, I'd rather be flying.

In times of conflict we need leaders; aircrew mates with experience, training and common sense. In peacetime, and running our human resources departments; we need managers with experience, training and common sense. And never the twain should meet.

The Yanks seem to manage pretty well letting pilots run the show. With a few obvious exceptions, they seem pretty good at it.

Last time I looked the RAF was run by pilots.

The Yanks get lots of money to spend, so being good or bad is somewhat irrelevant.

Not so.

The Yanks might have more money to spend, but their projects are proportionally more expensive (Typhoon £45m per airframe, Raptor $329m per airframe, for example).

In relative terms, therefore, they're no different from us.

USAF also has numerous senior civil servants in top jobs advising blokes in uniform. These civvies stay in their jobs for ages giving the continiuity that the RAF lacks.

Correct, and many of these people are former pilots.

Take a look at the top civilian directorate jobs in the Pentagon and you'll see they're often filled by former wing/squadron/directorate/MAJCOM CCs. They're there specifically to provide continuity.

Inbred
 

Without wishing to become a bullet magnet, I wonder if your man management and project management issues are in part caused by your 'closed shop' system, which breeds its successors exactly in the image of the forefathers.

There are very few organisations in the world nowadays where one has to be a company man 'man and boy' to get to the top. In fact, most CEO's have a breadth of experience in several companies, not necessarily in one industry. Likewise, the Civil Service actively recruits senior managers from outside and the police will accept older recruits.

Now I'm not necessarily suggesting a secondment to Sainsburys after Staff College as a career enhancer but you get my drift. Surely, if you are the 'Top Man' / 'Top Woman' destined for great things, then a tour with the Army or RN must be of benefit to your wider understanding of the military art ? Likewise, could an Army officer do the Staish job well, possibly bringing something different to the party ? (I presume that the nice cushy USAF exchanges are mainly for aircrew).

Probably too simplistic, eh ?

FP retires to lily pad....

P.S. There aren't many accountants in the Civil Service, just lots of civil servants in Finance positions, CRM or not.

This new common GD branch at wg cdr and above seems designed purely for the aircrew; let them take over other people's jobs, keep them happy, and more importantly, keep them in...

S41 dives for cover...

All those who want to run away to civvy street just because 'the management' are screwing up the RAF are in for a really terrible surprise! :}

so, if the aircrew are screwing up the RAF and we want a change, how much will it cost to bring in professionals to screw it up for us??

The best thing about having aircrew run the RAF into the ground is that they do it at supersonic speeds.

Would anyone wish to hazard a guess as to when, if ever, the aircrew branch would no longer represent the greater number of entrants at JO level. Could the reduction in the requirement for WSO/navigators and the possible introduction of unmanned systems in the future result in another branch having the lions share of the base of the manning pyramid and therefore get more senior officers at the top of the pyramid, thus outranking and outnumbering the aircrew branch and getting seats on the AFB. Or would the system ensure that aircrew would still reach the top of the pyramid?

T

Although there are differences between the military and the civil service, they both have a public sector culture.

The freedom to act is given by those above, by the rules or by precedent. To act outside these limiting authorities is not encouraged.

If you use your initiative and it doesn't come off, everyone for miles will sh*t on you from a great height; if it does come off, everyone will tell you how easy it was and they would have done the same ('rushing to the aid of the victors' syndrome).

Enjoy your flying but don't for a moment believe that success in the air will open the door to promotion and power; they aren't in any way connected.

Wonder why they teach leadership in the RAF. No one gets a chance to use it...